Intensity: How many reps should I do? How heavy should I lift?

Table of Contents

Introduction

How many reps should I do? How heavy should I lift? These are two questions which I hope to answer, and they are very nicely linked together into a single discussion about intensity.

Intensity is traditionally the difficulty of the exercise, or the amount of work an athlete performs per unit of time (Bompa & Haff, 2009). In strength training it is usually expressed as the amount of weight someone lifts in comparison to their maximum strength capacity, which is traditionally expressed as a percentage. For example: 70% x 5 would be to perform 70% of your one rep maximum for 5 repetitions. 

For this reason, intensity is very much linked to the number of reps you lift: 70% for 10 reps is very different to 70% for 1 rep, so it makes sense to link the two together.

Table of Contents

Measuring Intensity

I will discuss things like number of reps for strength and reps for hypertrophy, as well as try to answer the question “how heavy should I lift?” in the next few sections. But first, it is important to describe how we measure the weight that a lifter is lifting.

Generally, there are four methods of prescribing how much weight should be lifted a program:

Rep Max (RM)
This is the most basic method of prescribing the weight on a bar. If you write “Squat at 8RM”, then the 8RM would be the weight you can lift for 8 reps, and you’d lift it to failure.

Percentage
This is usually a percentage of someone’s 1RM. You might see 5 x 80%, telling you to do a set of five reps at 80% of your 1RM.

Reps in reserve
Generally written as “RIR”, for example “5 at 2 RIR”. This basically means you should aim perform a lift at a weight which lets you get 5 reps and have two more reps left in the tank.

RPE (Rate of Perceived Exhaustion)
Very similar to RIR – it is a scale of 1-10. 10RPE would be a lift to failure. 9RPE would be when you have 1 rep left in the tank. 8RPE would be 2 reps left in the tank. 7RPE is 3 reps left in the tank, and so forth. You can also get thing like 8.5RPE, which is when you definitely have 1 rep left, and you MIGHT have a second rep left.

You will often see a combination of the above, such as: like “3 sets at 80% with 2 RIR”, meaning perform 3 sets using 80% of you 1RM, stopping two reps from failure. Another example is something like “5@9, 5% load drop”, meaning you will aim to do a set with a weight heavy enough for you to do 5 reps, stopping one short of failure (this is the 5@9), and then you will reduce the load by 5% and do another set (the 5% load drop).

Other programs may use minimal weight prescription. They may just say to work up to a weight which starts to feel difficult, and then add 5lb every week, or every time you do that workout. 

There are other ways to measure intensity, one interesting method is using the velocity (speed) of the bar, however this is far from mainstream, and the four above should be sufficient. 

The method used to measure intensity is often not too important. The only word of caution would be to when you use training to failure as measurement, as this is likely to lead to either increased fatigue or having to sacrifice too much volume. The differences between percentages and RPE are minimal. Helms et al. (2018) found there was a small but insignificant trend favouring people who used RPE over percentages, however this was a fairly small difference. How you use percentages, RPE or RIR, is likely more important than which one you use, as well as each lifter’s “buy-in” to the methodology being used.

A note on different loading schemes and volume vs intensity

The last thing before I delve into the research. There are numerous different loading schemes generally seen. For strength training you may see someone doing a lot of lighter sets, or maybe gradually ramping the weight up within a session, or “sets across” (keeping the same weight for several sets). Some programs may utilize a lot of heavy singles (such as the Bulgarian training methodology). I’ll try to offer examples of how to utilize some of the more common and respected loading strategies at the end of this article, but for now it is important to understand what is required in each session and then we can look at the different tools to achieve this.

Another important note is that intensity does not exist in a vacuum. A set of 5 at 10RPE is far more fatiguing than a set of 5 at 7RPE. You can do far more sets at 7RPE than you can at 10RPE, however heavier weights are more specific to your training. Consider how the volume and intensity of exercises overlap and the effect this has on your recovery whilst writing a program. 

What the research says: Reps for strength, and reps for hypertrophy

There appears to be quite a lot of research around different rep ranges, and this is enough to offer broad recommendations to answer the first two questions asked: “How many reps should I do?” and “How heavy should I lift?”.

Below is a broad summary of all the research articles. Click here to skip to the conclusions of the research.

Studies which compare different rep ranges generally have participants split into groups, with each group performing a different rep range. They will then usually have each group perform the same number of sets, or each group lift the same total tonnage (sets x reps x weight lifted). For studies equating participants by tonnage, this will mean people doing heavier sets will generally do more sets than those doing lighter set: a set of 5 at 100kg is 500kg of tonnage, whilst a set of 8 at 90kg is 720kg of tonnage, so to do the same number of tonnage more sets will be required for the groups doing lower reps. For this reason, I have tried to categorise studies into two groups: volume-set equated, and volume-tonnage equated. 

Volume-set Equated

Holm et al. (2008) – Comparison of 10 sets of knee extensions. A participant performed 35 reps at 15.5% 1RM with one leg and 8 reps at 70% 1RM with the other. They trained three times per week for 12 weeks, doing 10 sets each session for each leg. Hypertrophy and strength improved with both groups, but the 8 reps at 70% protocol shown clearly better strength and hypertrophy outcomes.

Mitchell et al. (2012) – Comparison of three protocols: One set at 80%, three sets at 80% and three sets at 30%, all to the point of failure. For strength outcomes: 80% for 3 sets was best, followed by 80% for 1 set, followed by 30% for 3 sets. For hypertrophy outcomes: 80% for 3 sets and 30% for 3 sets was equal, followed by 80% for 1 set. 

Schoenfeld et al. (2015) – Trained men performed either 8-12 reps to failure or 25-35 reps to failure. They performed 3 sets of Bench, Military Press, Lat Pulldown, Cable Row, Squat, Leg Press and Leg Extension three times per week. There was similar hypertrophy between the two rep schemes. Training with 8-12 reps had slightly better strength outcomes, and 25-35 reps had better endurance outcomes.

Schuenke et al. (2012) – Untrained women compared three protocols: sets with 40-60% 1RM at a slow speed; sets with 40-60% 1RM at a normal speed; sets with 80-85% 1RM at normal speed. They performed 3 sets of leg press, squats and leg extension 3 times per week (twice per week for week 1). The 40-60% 1RM at a normal speed had no hypertrophy, whilst 80-85% 1RM at a normal speed  and 40-60% 1RM at a slow speed had equal hypertrophy outcomes.

Stefanki et al. (2019) – Untrained women compared taking a single set to failure with either 30% of 1RM or 80% 1RM. Exercises included Knee extensors and bicep curls – one leg and arm did 30% of 1RM, the other leg/arm did 80% of 1RM. They trained twice per week. They found both protocols resulted in similar hypertrophy and strength gains. 

Weiss et al. (2000) – Untrained men compared three protocols: 3-5RM, 13-15RM and 23-25RM. They performed 4 sets of squats three times per week within these protocols, with 6 minutes rest between sets. They found the  3-5RM group experienced the least hypertrophy, whilst 13-15RM and 23-25RM groups had equal hypertrophy. Strength was not measured. 

Volume-tonnage Equated

Campos et al. (2002) – Untrained men compared three protocols: 3-5 reps for 4 sets, 9-11 reps for 3 sets and 20-28 reps for 2 sets, all taken to failure. Only the 3-5 and 9-11 reps caused hypertrophy, with 3-5 rep protocol causing slightly more hypertrophy. For strength, 3-5 reps had the best strength gains, followed by 9-11 and 20-28 reps had the worst strength gains. 20-28 reps did, however, have the best endurance outcomes. 

Keitaro et al. (2021)  – Untrained men compared three protocols: 5 sets of 3 at 90% (their 4RM), 3 sets of 6 at 80% (their 8RM) and 2 sets of 10 at 70% (their 12RM). Hypertrophy was similar among all three groups. The 4RM group and 8RM group had the better strength outcomes.

Lasevicius et al. (2018) – Untrained men performed bicep curls or leg extensions, with one leg and arm doing 20% of 1RM to failure, and the other doing either 40%, 60% or 80% to failure. The 20% groups had the worst strength and hypertrophy outcomes. The 80% groups for the biceps had the best outcomes for hypertrophy and strength, whilst the 60% group had the best outcomes for the leg press. The remaining groups were fairly similar in their outcomes.

Leger et al. (2006) – Physically active but untrained males compared two protocols: 3-5 reps and 20-28 reps. Both groups had similar hypertrophy gains. I do, however, question how accurate their 1RM is, as the average participant weight was 80kg, whilst the average 1RM squat is 183kg, which is unrealistic for untrained lifters.

Van Roie et al. (2013) – Men and women aged 60+ compared three protocols: 2 sets at 80%; 1 set at 80-100 reps to failure; and 1 set of 60 reps at 20% 1RM followed without rest by 40% of 1RM to failure. The 2 sets at 80% had the slightly better strength outcomes than the mixed-weight group, with the 80-100 rep group having the worst strength outcomes. Both the 80% protocol and the mixed-weight protocol had similar hypertrophy, with the 80-100 reps having the worst hypertrophy outcomes

Meta-analysis

Finally, Schoenfeld et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis (a meta-analysis is a study that examines previous literature on a topic and draws conclusions based on this). They found that high loads (over 60% of 1RM) tended to result in better strength gains, although lighter loads (less than or equal to 60% of 1RM) still resulted in clear strength gains. They stated that lifting heavier being better for strength is “consistent with the principle of specificity, which dictates that the more closely a training program replicates the requirements of a given outcome, the greater the transfer of the training to that outcome” 

They also found that research shown that heavier loads resulted in slightly more hypertrophy, however this difference was marginal and the varying reasons for this mean it may not be possible to reliably conclude that heavier loads are more effective in hypertrophy.

Research Conclusions

The research tends to add evidence to justify the most common internet recommendations:

Reps for Strength: performing sets with 1-5 reps at heavy weights is best for strength.

Reps for Hypertrophy:  performing sets between 8-12 reps is best for hypertrophy.

Interestingly, research appears to indicate that for hypertrophy outcomes the reps don’t matter as long as you perform over 8 reps and take each set relatively close to failure.

There is, however, some research which indicates that performing a lot of reps per set can elicit “unpleasurable feelings” and make training “less gratifying”, whilst training with moderate loads (such as when lifting in the 8-12 rep range) elicits “pleasurable feelings” (Ribeiro et al. 2019). Higher-rep sets (15+ reps) also take longer to perform, and elicit worse strength outcomes. Therefore, it is logical to keep the number of reps for hypertrophy lower, likely within the 8-12 rep range.

It is worth noting that the differences in strength comparing 3-5 reps and 8-12 reps appears to favor 3-5 reps, but the difference is not that big. Likewise, performing 8-12 reps is better for hypertrophy than 3-5 reps, but the difference is not that large. You will gain strength lifting in the 8-12 rep range, and you will gain size lifting in the 3-5 rep range.

Should you train to failure?

There are a few studies on training to failure:

Carroll et al. (2018) – Compared trained male lifters training to failure to using percentages to determine weights which often led to sets having up to 5 reps in reserve. They found staying away from failure had a slightly better strength outcome, but not by much.

Davies et al. (2016) – conducted a meta-analysis which indicated staying a few reps from failure is better for both strength and hypertrophy outcomes, although the differences for hypertrophy are minimal.

Galiano et al. (2020) – 28 trained men trained with two protocols: One group stopped at 5% velocity loss, the other at 20% velocity loss. There was a slightly better strength outcome for the 20% group.

Sanchez-Morena et al. (2020) – Trained men performed pull-ups using two protocols: one group stopped when the velocity loss reached 25% (roughly 50% of max reps), the other at 50% velocity loss (roughly 85% of max reps). The 25% velocity loss group had better 1RM strength outcomes, whilst max reps were similar but favoured the 25% velocity loss group.

Tanimoto et al. (2008) – Untrained men performed squat, bench, lat pull-down, ab-bend and back extension twice per week for 3 sets using one of two protocols: One group performed 55-60% 1RM, the other 80-90% 1RM (please note, 90% 1RM for 8 reps seems unrealistic). They found similar hypertrophy and strength gains between the groups.

The research appears to indicate that staying away from failure is more effective that training to failure. There isn’t a huge amount of research to indicate how far from failure you can train, but I would propose that staying within the 6-8 RPE range (roughly 2-4 reps in reserve) for most sets appears to be optimal for most people, but there is definite “wiggle room”.

So, how many reps should I do? How Heavy should I lift? Programming with these recommendations

We have the data, although it is not quite as conclusive as we’d like. Now it’s time to look at actually programming. I want to discuss a few different important points first, and then in the next section I will offer actual programming examples.

Benchmarking Sets – Firstly, you need to know that what you are doing is working. Measuring hypertrophy can be difficult, as it can take several weeks to have measurable levels of hypertrophy. However, strength outcomes are generally a good indicator that you are getting both stronger and increasing muscle size. For this reason, I recommend trying to include a few benchmarking sets in your program. These are sets that you perform to a relatively high RPE (usually 8 RPE or 9 RPE) within the strength rep-range. Examples of this could include performing a set of 5 reps at 9 RPE, or a single at 8 RPE (1@8). You’ll perform this every microcycle (usually every week) and it allows you to track progress. Whilst I prefer benchmarking sets, they aren’t essential, you could try to include other forms of progressive overload that can offer evidence that you are progressing, but they tend to be slightly less reliable than benchmarking sets.

Mixture of hypertrophy and strength – Strength is influenced by skill, neurological adaptations, and muscle size. Whilst performing sets within the 1-5 rep range may be best for strength, it may still be useful to perform some sets within the 8-12 (hypertrophy) rep range to increase muscle size. Likewise, it can be useful for hypertrophy purposes to have some sets within the strength rep range (1-5 reps). 

Helms et al. (2018) recommends for strength outcomes to have ⅔ of sets within the strength rep range, and ⅓ within the hypertrophy rep range, whilst for hypertrophy outcomes to have ⅔  of sets within the hypertrophy rep range, and ⅓ of sets within the strength rep range. Reactive Training Systems tend to have three classifications of lifts based on Bondarchuk’s classification system: Competition Exercise (usually performed within 1-5 rep range), Specific Development Exercise (usually performed within 1-5 rep range) and Specific Preparatory Exercise (usually performed within 8-12 rep range). Other programs may use periodization and may have a block focused on hypertrophy (within 8-12 rep range), another on strength (3-5 rep range), and another on power (1-5 rep range). The end result over several months usually means ⅔ of sets are within the strength rep range, and ⅓ are within the hypertrophy rep range – sometimes these ratios may differ, but generally they end up within these ranges, which is Helms et al.’s (2018) recommendation. 

Novice Lifters

Generally Novice lifters will respond to pretty much anything, and they will gain very rapid strength gains, primarily due to skill improvements and faster initial neurological adaptations. They will experience faster initial hypertrophy, but hypertrophy is still a slow process regardless. Bompa and Haff (2009) recommend that new athletes should perform a more varied training program initially and should only specialise later on for better long-term outcomes. Additionally, this could help increase compliance as new athletes are still finding their feet and discovering what they like. For this reason, a mixture of different rep ranges is beneficial for novices, although it really isn’t the end of the world if they focus on just one goal.

Example Lifting Protocols

As promised, here are a number of different loading strategies you can try.

Just a final note – these are loading strategies focused on strength outcomes, as hypertrophy outcomes tend to benefit quite well from simple sets across. Additionally, they are simply examples of how to program one exercise slot, they are not entire microcycles and do not account for periodization.

x1@8
This is generally performing a heavy single at 8RPE. It has become very popular over the past few years and is often used as a bench-marking set.

Considerations
It doesn’t appear to be too fatiguing.
Lack of experience with singles may make judging RPE difficult, but this skill can be quickly developed.
It allows for specific training towards 1RM.
Overuse may lead to a “repeated bout effect” and diminishing returns.

Boring but Basic – Sets across:
This can include things like doing 5×5 (5 sets of 5), or 3 sets of 8, or 4 sets of 12 etc. You choose a weight which is challenging, and do a set number of reps for a specific weight. Usually this will be within the 6-8 RPE range.

Considerations
It is simple and therefore easy to apply and understand.
Loading protocols can be more easily applied, for example, you could start at 5×5 at 65% 1RM, and program increases in weight over the course of several weeks to create a basic Mesocycle.
Sets will generally get harder, so it is fairly similar to performing “ramping” sets.
It doesn’t allow much room for managing fatigue or applying more specific rep schemes.
There is no bench-marking sets, so progress will have to be measured elsewhere or by using progressive overload protocols (such as adding weight and/or reps overtime).

Light Back-off Work
Generally you’d perform a bench-marking set followed by several back-off sets. For example:

5 @ 9 RPE (Set of 5 at 9 RPE)
4×5 at 75% 1RM (4 sets of 5 at 75% 1RM)

Or maybe:
1 @ 8 RPE (Single at 8 RPE)
5×5 at 70% 1RM (5 sets of 5 at 70% 1RM).

Considerations
The emphasis here is generally on getting in some additional volume, which is why the weights are usually kept lighter.
Back-off sets like these are usually performed after a bench-marking set.
This is less specific to 1RM strength, but does allow increased volume.

Load Drops
This is where you drop the weight by a specific percentage:

5 @ 9 RPE (set of 5 at 9 RPE)
3×5 @ 10% load drop.
Here you will perform a set of 5 at 9 RPE, and then drop the weight by 5% and do 3 sets of 5.

Alternatively, you could try something like this:

5 @ 7 RPE
5 @ 8 RPE
5 @ 9 RPE
5 @ 5 % load drop
Here you will have gradually built up to a set of 5 at 9RPE and then dropped the weight by 5%.

Considerations
This can allow for better load-management based on how much weight the lifter performed that session.
It can be tricky to offer load-drops at the desired intensity, making several sets at a load-drop potentially too fatiguing or not stressful enough.

Back-off Work with singles/triples
You would perform your benchmarking set (1@8 RPE makes the most sense given you are going to perform triples afterwards) and then perform heavy triples afterwards. This is very similar to the above two protocols, but uses triples as a back-off set.

1 @ 8 RPE
3×3 at 5% load drop (typically between 85-90% 1RM)

Considerations
It is more specific to lifting 1RM, getting you ready to lift at the higher intensity – for this reason it makes sense to make the back-off work at a higher RPE (here it will be around 8-9RPE).
Each set is more fatiguing, so you generally can perform less volume.
It is better towards the end of mesocycle.

Ramping Sets
Where you gradually increase the weight, such as:

5 @ 7 RPE
5 @ 8 RPE
5 @ 9 RPE

Considerations
This will usually include additional protocols, such as load drops.
This can let lifters perform more work at a higher intensity whilst performing a similar amount of overall volume compared to sets across.
This can help lifters warm-up and prepare for heavier sets.

Linear Periodization into singles or triples
Most of the protocols above involve sets of 5. These are effective at increasing strength but still help increase hypertrophy. Singles and triples can, however, have their place:

5×3 (5 sets of 3) or 5×1 (5 sets of 1) for sets across – you could start by performing 5 sets of 5, and then towards the end of a mesocycle change this to sets of 3 and then singles. This may be particularly effective after prior hypertrophy work, as it will follow a traditional periodization plan, and offer more specific work in lower rep ranges.

Which lifting protocol should you choose?

So, you know the ideal reps for strength and reps for hypertrophy, and have some different lifting protocols to choose from. The final bit of information to answer the questions “How many reps should I do?” and “How much weight should I lift?” is knowing which lifting protocol to choose and when.

When to choose which protocol is generally easier to answer – for strength you want hypertrophy blocks far away from competition, and strength and power blocks closer to competition, with an increase in specificity. Likewise if you’re performing in bodybuilding showers you will want hypertrophy blocks closer to competition.

Additionally, the protocols are not mutually exclusive. You can alter them to suit your needs, or use multiple protocols within a microcycle (or the same protocol throughout a microcycle). For example, one squat microcycle using the Bondarchuk exercise classification mentioned earlier may include:

Squat (Competition Exercise):
x1 @ 8 RPE
70% 5×5

Pause Squat (Specific Development Exercise):
5 @ 6 RPE
5 @ 7 RPE
5 @ 8 RPE
5 reps at 5% load drop

Leg Press (Specific Preparatory Exercise):
4 sets of 8 at 70%

When it comes to which lifting protocol to trial, I recommend creating Mesocycle using loading protocols which are further from failure and generally around 5 reps. Then write a second mesocycle that uses lower reps and high intensity for the competition exercise (the squat in the above template), and a protocol with a slightly higher intensity for the specific development exercise (pause squat in the above template). After this you will have two blocks with different lifting protocols to gain some data off to see what you a) respond best to, and b) enjoy more. Use this to continue to write future blocks, continually analysing the data you collect.

I appreciate this is not exactly concrete advice, but the truth is that most of the different lifting protocols are very similar, provide similar but slightly different benefits and which protocol is best is likely dependent on how close you are to a competition and individual athlete response. As long as you are doing enough sets in the right rep scheme, you will make progress regardless of protocol, the rest will be trial and error to see which protocol works best for you.

How many reps should I do? How much weight should I lift? A summary picture:

How many reps should I do? Picture Summary.

References

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

Campos, G., Luecke, T., Wendeln, H., Toma, K., Hagerman, F., Murray, T., Ragg, K., Ratamess, N., Kraemer, W. & Staron, R. (2002) ‘Muscular adaptation in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones’, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88, 50-60.

Helms, E., Byrnes, R., Cooke, D., Haischer, M., Carzoli, J., Johnson, T., Cross, M., Cronin, J., Storey, A. & Zourdos, M. (2018) ‘RPE vs Percentage 1RM Loding in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions’, Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 247.

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

Holm, L., Reitelseder, S., Pedersen, T., Doessing, S., Petersen, S., Flyvberg, A., Andersen, J., Aagard, P. & Kjaer, M. (2008) ‘Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity’, Journal of Applied Physiology, 105, 1454-1461.

Keitaro, K., Toshihiro, I. & Hideaki, Y. (2021) ‘Effects of 4, 8, and 12 Repetition Maximum Resistance Training Protocols on Muscle Volume and Strength’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35, 879-885.

Lasevicius, T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Schoenfeld, B., Roschel, H., Tavares, L., De Souza, E., Laurentina, G. & Tricoli, V. (2018) ‘Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy’, European Journal of Sport Science, 18, 772-780.

Leger, B., Cartoni, R., Praz, M., Lamon, S., Deriaz, O., Crettenand, A., Gobelet, C., Rohmer, P., Konzelmann, M. Luthi, F. & Russell, A. (2006) ‘Akt signalling through GSK-3B, mTOR, and Foxo1 is involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy’, Journal of Physiology, 576, 923-933.

Mitchell, C., Churchward-Venne, T., West, D., Burd, N., Breen, L., Baker, S., Phillips, S. (2012) ‘Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophy gains in young men’, Journal of Applied Physiology, 113, 71-77.

Ribeiro, A., dos Santos, E., Nunes, J. & Schoenfeld, B. (2019) ‘Acute Effects of Different Training Loads of Affective Responses in Resistance-trained Men’, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, 850-855.

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., Peterson, M., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B. & Sonmez, G. (2015) ‘Effects of Low-Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 2954-2963.

Schuenke, M., Herman, J., Gliders, R., Haerman, F., Hikida, R., Rana, S., Ragg, K. & Staron, R. (2012) ‘Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance-training regimens’, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 3585-3595.

Tanimoto, M., Sanada, K., Yamamoto, K., Kawano, H., Gando, Y. Tabata, I., Ishii, N. & Miyachi, M. (2008) ‘Effects of Whole-Body Low-Intensity Resistance Training with Slow Movement and Tonic Force Generation on Muscular Size and Strength in Young Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22, 1926-1938. 

Stefanki, D., Dzulkarnain, A. & Gray, S. (2019) ‘Comparing the effects of low and high load resistance exercise in young women’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 37, 1375-1380.

Van Roie, E., Delecluse, C., Coudyzer, W., Boonen, S. & Bautmans, I. (2013) ‘Strength training at high versus low external resistance in older adults: effects on muscle volume, muscle strength, and force-velocity characteristics’, Experimental Gerontology, 48, 1351-1361.

Weiss, L., Coney, H. & Clark, F. (2000) ‘Gross Measures of Exercise-Induced Muscular Hypertrophy’, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 30, 143-148.