. . .

Published ahead of Print

Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy

but Not Strength in Trained Men
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVDZHALwmCBBpaFc6phE/TWqZiHbDbW0PtHUAlBAFgYJ2 on 08/29/2018

Brad J. Schoenfeld1, Bret Contreras2, James Krieger3, Jozo Grgic4, Kenneth Delcastillo1,
Ramon Belliard1, and Andrew Alto1
1
Department of Health Sciences, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, NY
2
Sport Performance Research Institute, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
3
Weightology, LLC, Redmond, WA
4
Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Accepted for Publication: 14 August 2018

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® Published ahead of Print contains articles in unedited
manuscript form that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This manuscript will undergo
copyediting, page composition, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered that could affect the content.

Copyright © 2018 American College of Sports Medicine

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001764

Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy

but Not Strength in Trained Men

Brad J. Schoenfeld1, Bret Contreras2, James Krieger3, Jozo Grgic4, Kenneth Delcastillo1,

Ramon Belliard1, and Andrew Alto1

1
Department of Health Sciences, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, NY
2
Sport Performance Research Institute, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
3
Weightology, LLC, Redmond, WA
4
Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Corresponding author: Brad J. Schoenfeld, CUNY Lehman College, 250 Bedford Park Blvd

West, Bronx, NY, 10468; email: [email protected]; telephone: 718-960-1999; fax: 718-

960-1999

The results of this study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or

inappropriate data manipulation, and do not constitute endorsement by ACSM. This study was

supported by a PSC CUNY grant from the State of New York. The authors declare no conflicts

of interest.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate muscular adaptations between low-,

moderate-, and high-volume resistance training (RT) protocols in resistance-trained men.

METHODS: Thirty-four healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to 1 of 3

experimental groups: a low-volume group (1SET) performing 1 set per exercise per training

session (n = 11); a moderate-volume group (3SET) performing 3 sets per exercise per training

session (n = 12); or a high-volume group (5SET) performing 5 sets per exercise per training

session (n = 11). Training for all routines consisted of three weekly sessions performed on non-

consecutive days for 8 weeks. Muscular strength was evaluated with 1 repetition maximum (RM)

testing for the squat and bench press. Upper-body muscle endurance was evaluated using 50% of

subjects bench press 1RM performed to momentary failure. Muscle hypertrophy was evaluated

using B-mode ultrasonography for the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, mid-thigh and lateral

thigh. RESULTS: Results showed significant pre-to-post intervention increases in strength and

endurance in all groups, with no significant between-group differences. Alternatively, while all

groups increased muscle size in most of the measured sites from pre-to-post intervention,

significant increases favoring the higher volume conditions were seen for the elbow flexors, mid-

thigh, and lateral thigh. CONCLUSION: Marked increases in strength and endurance can be

attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three, 13-minute weekly sessions over an 8-

week period, and these gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time

commitment. Alternatively, muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with

increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes. KEYWORDS: volume; dose-

response relationship; strength training; hypertrophy; single set

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Introduction

Resistance training (RT) is the primary exercise intervention for increasing muscle mass

in humans. It is theorized that the volume of training performed in a RT bout – herein determined

by the formula: repetitions /x/ sets (1) – plays a significant role in chronic muscular adaptations

such as muscle size and strength (2). As compared to single-set routines, acute studies indicate

that performing multiple-sets augments the phosphorylation of p70S6 kinase and muscle protein

synthesis (MPS), suggesting that higher volumes of training are warranted for maximizing the

hypertrophic response (3, 4). However, while acute signaling and MPS studies can help to

generate hypotheses as to potential long-term RT responses, longitudinal studies directly

assessing hallmark adaptations such as muscular strength and muscle hypertrophy are necessary

to draw evidence-based conclusions for exercise prescription (5).

When evaluating the results of longitudinal research on the topic, many of the studies

have failed to show statistically significant differences in hypertrophy between lower and higher

RT volumes. However, low sample sizes in these studies raise the potential for type II errors,

invariably confounding the ability to draw conclusive inferences regarding probability. A recent

meta-analysis showed a dose-response relationship between the total number of weekly sets and

increases in muscle growth (6). However, the analysis was only able to determine dose-response

effects up to 10 total weekly sets per muscle group due to the paucity of research on higher

volume RT programs. Thus, it remains unclear whether training with even higher volumes would

continue to enhance hypertrophic adaptations and, if so, at what point these results would

plateau. An added limitation to these findings is that only 2 of the 15 studies that met inclusion

criteria were carried out in individuals with previous RT experience. There is compelling

evidence that resistance-trained individuals respond differently than those who are new to RT

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(7). A "ceiling effect" makes it progressively more difficult for trained lifters to increase muscle

mass, thereby necessitating more demanding RT protocols to elicit further muscular gains.

Indeed, there is emerging evidence that consistent RT can alter anabolic intracellular signaling

(8), indicating an attenuated hypertrophic response. Thus, findings from untrained individuals

cannot necessarily be generalized to a resistance-trained population.

A dose-response pattern has also been proposed for RT volume and muscular strength

gains. A recent meta-analysis on the topic by Ralston et al. (9) showed that moderate to high

weekly training volumes (defined as set volume) are more effective for strength gains as

compared to lower training volumes. It should be noted, however, that only two of the included

studies employed a dose-response study design among trained individuals. In a sample of 32

resistance-trained men, Marshall et al. (10) demonstrated that higher volume training produces

both faster and greater strength gains as compared to lower volume training. In contrast to these

results, Ostrowski et al. (11) conducted a study among 27 trained men and reported similar

changes in muscular strength between low-, moderate- and high-volume training groups. Both of

these studies included resistance-trained men, yet they observed different findings. It, therefore,

is evident that further work among trained individuals is warranted to better elucidate this topic.

Given the existing gaps in the current literature, the purpose of this study was to evaluate

muscular adaptations between low-, moderate-, and high-volume RT protocols in resistance-

trained men. This design afforded the ability to glean insight into the benefits of the respective

training protocols while taking into account the time-efficiency of training. Based on previous

research and meta-analytical data, we hypothesized that there would be a graded response to

outcomes, with increasing gains in muscular strength and hypertrophy seen in low-, moderate-,

and high-volume programs, respectively.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Methods

Subjects

Subjects were 45 healthy male volunteers (height = 175.0 ± 7.9 cm; weight = 82.5 ± 13.8

kg; age = 23.8 ± 3.8 years; RT experience = 4.4 ± 3.9 years) recruited from a university

population. This sample size was justified by a priori power analysis in G*power using a target

effect size (ES) of f = 0.25, alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80, which determined that 36 subjects

were required for participation; the additional recruitment accounted for the possibility of

dropouts. Subjects were required to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) males between the

ages of 18-35; (2) no existing musculoskeletal disorders; (3) claimed to be free from

consumption of anabolic steroids or any other legal or illegal agents known to increase muscle

size for the previous year; (4) experienced with RT, defined as consistently lifting weights at

least 3 times per week for a minimum of 1 year.

Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups: a low-volume group

(1SET) performing 1 set per exercise per training session (n = 15); a moderate-volume group

(3SET) performing 3 sets per exercise per training session (n = 15); or a high-volume group

(5SET) performing 5 sets per exercise per training session (n = 15). Using previously established

criteria (12), this translated into a total weekly number of sets per muscle group of 6 and 9 sets

for 1SET, 18 and 27 sets for 3SET, and 30 and 45 sets for 5SET in the upper and lower limbs,

respectively. The number of sets was greater for the lower-body as compared to the upper-body

musculature. Such a training program was designed based on the claim that lower-body muscles

might require more training volume (as compared to the upper-body) to optimize muscular

adaptations with RT (13). Approval for the study was obtained from the Lehman College

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Institutional Review Board (#2017-0778). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior

to beginning the study.

Resistance Training Procedures

The RT protocol consisted of seven exercises per session targeting all major muscle

groups of the body. The exercises performed were: flat barbell bench press, barbell military

press, wide grip lateral pulldown, seated cable row, barbell back squat, machine leg press, and

unilateral machine leg extension. These exercises were chosen based on their common inclusion

in bodybuilding- and strength-type RT programs (14, 15). To prevent confounding, subjects were

instructed to refrain from performing any additional resistance-type or high-intensity anaerobic

training for the duration of the study.

Training for all routines consisted of three weekly sessions performed on non-

consecutive days for 8 weeks. Sets consisted of 8-12 repetitions carried out to the point of

momentary concentric failure, i.e., the inability to perform another concentric repetition while

maintaining proper form. The cadence of repetitions was carried out in a controlled fashion, with

a concentric action of approximately 1 second and an eccentric action of approximately 2

seconds. Subjects were afforded 90 seconds rest between sets. The time between exercises was

prolonged to approximately 120 seconds given the additional time required for the set-up of the

equipment used in the subsequent resistance exercise. The load was adjusted for each exercise as

needed on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved momentary failure in the target

repetition range. Thus, if a subject completed more than 12 repetitions to momentary failure in a

given set, the load was increased based on the supervising researcher‟s assessment of what

would be required to reach momentary failure in the desired loading range; if less than 8

repetitions were accomplished, the load was similarly decreased. All routines were directly

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
supervised by the research team to ensure proper performance of the respective routines.

Attempts were made to progressively increase the loads lifted each week in order ensure that the

subjects were exercising with as much resistance as possible within the confines of maintaining

the target repetition range. Prior to training, subjects underwent 10 repetition maximum (RM)

testing to determine individual initial training loads for each exercise. RM testing was consistent

with recognized guidelines as established by the National Strength and Conditioning Association

(14).

Dietary Adherence

To avoid potential dietary confounding of results, subjects were advised to maintain their

customary nutritional regimen and to avoid taking any supplements other than those provided in

the course of the study. Dietary adherence was assessed by self-reported food records using a

nutritional tracking application (http://www.myfitnesspal.com), which was collected for 5-day

periods twice during the study: 1 week before the first training session (i.e. baseline) and during

the final week of the training protocol. Subjects were instructed on how to properly record all

food items and their respective portion sizes consumed for the designated period of interest. Each

item of food was individually entered into the program, and the program provided relevant

information as to total energy consumption, as well as amount of energy derived from proteins,

fats, and carbohydrates for each time period analyzed. To help ensure that dietary protein needs

were met, subjects consumed a supplement on training days containing 24g protein and 1g

carbohydrate (Iso100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Isolate, Dymatize Nutrition, Dallas, TX) under

the supervision of the research staff.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Measurements

Anthropometry: Subjects were told to refrain from eating for 12 hours prior to testing,

eliminate alcohol consumption for 24 hours, abstain from strenuous exercise for 24 hours, and

void immediately before the test. Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a stadiometer.

Body mass was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg on a calibrated scale (InBody 770; Biospace Co.

Ltd., Seoul, Korea).

Muscle Thickness: Ultrasound imaging was used to obtain measurements of muscle

thickness (MT), which shows a high correlation with RT-induced changes in muscle cross-

sectional area as determined by the "gold standard" magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (16). As

reported by others, correlations between MRI and ultrasound measurements amount to 0.89,

0.73, and 0.91 for elbow flexors, elbow extensors, and quadriceps MT, respectively (17, 18). The

lead researcher, a trained ultrasound technician, performed all testing using a B-mode ultrasound

imaging unit (ECO3, Chison Medical Imaging, Ltd, Jiang Su Province, China). The technician

applied a water-soluble transmission gel (Aquasonic 100 Ultrasound Transmission gel, Parker

Laboratories Inc., Fairfield, NJ) to each measurement site, and a 5-10 MHz ultrasound probe was

placed perpendicular to the tissue interface without depressing the skin. When the quality of the

image was deemed satisfactory, the technician saved the image to hard drive and obtained MT

dimensions by measuring the distance from the subcutaneous adipose tissue-muscle interface to

the muscle-bone interface. Measurements were taken on the right side of the body at 4 sites: (1)

elbow flexors, (2) elbow extensors, (3) mid-thigh (a composite of the rectus femoris and vastus

intermedius), and (4) lateral thigh (a composite of the vastus lateralis and vastus intermedius).

For the anterior and posterior upper arm, measurements were taken 60% distal between the

lateral epicondyle of the humerus and the acromion process of the scapula; mid- and lateral thigh

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
measurements were taken 50% between the lateral condyle of the femur and greater trochanter

for the quadriceps femoris. In an effort to ensure that swelling in the muscles from training did

not obscure results, images were obtained 48-72 hours before commencement of the study, as

well as after the final RT session. This is consistent with research showing that acute increases in

MT return to baseline within 48 hours following a RT session (19). To further ensure accuracy of

measurements, 3 images were obtained for each site and then averaged to obtain a final value.

The between-day repeatability of ultrasound tests was assessed in a pilot study in a sample of 10

young resistance-trained men. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from our lab

for thickness measurement of the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, mid-thigh and lateral thigh as

assessed on consecutive days are 0.976, 0.950, 0.944 and 0.998, respectively. The standard error

of the measurement (SEM) for elbow flexor, elbow extensor, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh MT

was 0.70, 0.83, and 1.09, and 0.34 mms, respectively.

Maximal Strength Assessments

Muscle Strength: Upper- and lower-body strength was assessed by 1RM testing in the

barbell parallel back squat (1RMSQUAT) and flat barbell bench press (1RMBENCH) exercises. These

exercises were chosen because they are well-established as measures of maximal strength.

Subjects reported to the laboratory having refrained from any exercise other than activities of

daily living for at least 48 hours prior to baseline testing and at least 48 hours prior to testing at

the conclusion of the study. RM testing was consistent with recognized guidelines established by

the NSCA (14). In brief, subjects performed a general warm-up prior to testing that consisted of

light cardiovascular exercise lasting approximately 5-10 minutes. A specific warm-up set of the

given exercise of 8-10 repetitions was performed at ~50% of subjects‟ perceived 1RM followed

by one to two sets of 2-3 repetitions at a load corresponding to ~60-80% 1RM. Subjects then

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
performed sets of 1 repetition of increasing weight for 1RM determination. Three to 5 minutes

rest was provided between each successive attempt. All 1RM determinations were made within 5

trials. Subjects were required to reach parallel in the 1RMSQUAT for the attempt to be considered

successful as determined by a squat beeper (SquatRight); confirmation of squat depth was

obtained by a research assistant positioned laterally to the subject to ensure accuracy. Successful

1RMBENCH was achieved if the subject displayed a five-point body contact position (head, upper

back and buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) and executed full elbow

extension. 1RMSQUAT testing was conducted prior to 1RMBENCH with a 5-minute rest period

separating tests. Recording of foot and hand placement was made during baseline 1RM testing

and then used for post-study performance. All testing sessions were supervised by the research

team to achieve a consensus for success on each trial. The repeatability of strength tests was

assessed on 2 non-consecutive days in a pilot study of 6 young, resistance-trained men. The ICC

for the 1RMBENCH and 1RMSQUAT was 0.98 and 0.93, respectively. The SEMs for these measures

are 2.0 and 2.4 kgs, respectively.

Muscle Endurance: Upper-body muscular endurance was assessed by performing the

bench press using 50% of the subject‟s initial 1RM in the bench press (50%BP) for as many

repetitions as possible to momentary failure with proper form. Successful performance was

achieved if the subject displayed a five-point body contact position (head, upper back and

buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) and executed a full lock-out.

Muscular endurance testing was carried out after assessment of muscular strength to minimize

effects of metabolic stress interfering with performance of the latter. The repeatability of the

muscular endurance test was assessed on 2 non-consecutive days in a pilot study of 7 young

resistance-trained men. The ICC for the 50%BP was 0.93 and the SEM was 0.99 repetitions.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Statistical Analyses

Data were modeled using both a frequentist and Bayesian approach. The frequentist

approach involved a using an ANCOVA on the change scores, with group (1, 3, or 5 sets) as the

factor and with the baseline value as a covariate. The Bayesian approach involved a JZS Bayes

Factor ANCOVA with default prior scales. In the case of a significant ANCOVA effect, control

for the family-wise error rate of multiple testing was performed using a Holm-Bonferroni

correction. In the Bayes Factor ANCOVA, the posterior odds were corrected for multiple testing

by fixing to 0.5 the prior probability that the null hypothesis holds across all comparisons.

Analyses were performed using JASP 0.8.6 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Effects were

considered significant at P ≤ 0.05. Bayes factors for effects were interpreted as “Weak”,

“Positive”, “Strong”, or “Very Strong” according to Raftery (20). Data are reported as x ± SD

unless otherwise specified.

Results

Eleven subjects dropped out during the course of the study, resulting in a total sample of

34 subjects (1SET n = 11; 3SET n = 12; 5SET n = 11). Reasons for dropouts were as follows:

personal reasons = 4; non-compliance = 3; training-related injury = 2; injury unrelated to training

= 2. Thus, the study was slightly underpowered based on initial power analysis. All subjects

included in the final statistical analysis completed > 80% of sessions with an overall average

attendance of 94%. Average training time per session was ~13 minutes for 1SET, ~40 minutes

for 3SET, and ~68 minutes for 5SET. Figure 1 depicts the data collection process in flow chart

format.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Squat 1-RM

We were unable to gauge successful 1RM in one of the subjects from SET1 and one of

the subjects from SET3 in the allotted number of trials, and thus had to exclude their data from

analysis. There was no significant difference between groups in squat 1-RM improvement, and

evidence favored the null model (P = 0.22; BF10 < 1; Table 1; Figure 2A).

Bench 1-RM

There was no significant difference between groups in bench 1-RM improvement, and

there was weak evidence favoring a difference in pre-test bench 1-RM over a group difference in

bench press improvement (P = 0.15; BF10 < 1 for group differences; Table 1; Figure 2B).

Bench Endurance

There was no significant difference between groups in bench endurance improvement,

and evidence favored the null model (P = 0.52; BF10 < 1; Table 1; Figure 2c).

Elbow Flexor Thickness

There was a significant difference between groups in improvements in bicep thickness,

and positive evidence in favor of a group effect over the null (P = 0.02; BF10 = 3.04; Table 1;

Figure 3A). Post-hoc comparisons showed a significant difference between 1 and 5 sets (Table

1). There was positive evidence in favor of 5 sets compared to 1 set (BF10 = 4.71) and weak

evidence in favor of 3 sets compared to 1 set (BF10 = 1.30). Evidence did not favor 3 sets versus

5 sets (BF10 = 0.60).

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Elbow Extensor Thickness

We were unable to achieve satisfactory imaging in one of the subjects from SET3, and

thus had to exclude his data from analysis. There was no significant difference between groups in

the improvement in triceps thickness, and evidence favored the null model (P = 0.19; BF10 < 1;

Table 1; Figure 3B).

Mid-Thigh Thickness

We were unable to achieve satisfactory imaging in three of the subjects from SET3 and

two of the subjects from SET5, and thus had to exclude their data from analysis. There was a

significant difference between groups in improvements in rectus femoris thickness, and positive

evidence in favor of a group effect over the null (P = 0.02; BF10 = 8.51; Table 1; Figure 3C).

Post-hoc comparisons showed a significant difference between 1 and 5 sets (Table 1). There was

positive evidence in favor of 5 sets compared to 1 set (BF10 = 13.65) and weak evidence in favor

of 5 sets compared to 3 sets (BF10 = 2.34). Evidence did not favor 1 set versus 3 sets (BF10 =

0.51).

Lateral Thigh Thickness

There was a significant difference between groups in improvements in vastus lateralis

thickness, and strong evidence in favor of both a group effect and pre-test effect over the null (P

= 0.006; BF10 = 63.87; Table 1; Figure 3D). Post-hoc comparisons showed a significant

difference between 1 and 5 sets (Table 1). There was strong evidence in favor of 5 sets compared

to 1 set (BF10 = 38.14) and weak evidence in favor of 3 sets compared to 1 set (BF10 = 1.42) and

5 sets compared to 3 sets (BF10 = 2.25).

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Diet

There were no significant differences between groups in changes in self-reported

kilocalorie or macronutrient intake (Table 1). There was positive evidence in favor of baseline

differences in self-reported kilocalorie intake (BF10 = 10.26; Table 1), but only weak evidence in

favor of baseline differences in self-reported macronutrient intake (1 < BF10 < 3, Table 2).

Discussion

The present study provided several important findings that further our knowledge of the

effect of RT volume on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. Specifically,

changes in muscle strength and muscle endurance were similar regardless of the volume

performed when training in a moderate loading range (8-12 repetitions per set); alternatively,

higher volumes of training in this loading range were associated with greater increases in

markers of muscle hypertrophy. We discuss the particulars of these findings, as well as the

study‟s limitations, in the subheadings below.

Muscle Strength

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, gains in muscular strength were strikingly similar

across conditions, with volume showing no differential effects on 1RMSQUAT or 1RMBENCH.

Indeed, the results presented herein indicate that the 1SET training condition may be similarly

effective at increasing muscular strength as performing 3 or 5 sets per exercise. These findings

indicate that resistance-trained individuals can markedly enhance levels of strength by

performing only ~39 minutes of weekly RT, with gains equal to that achieved in a fivefold

greater time commitment.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Our results are somewhat in contrast to the meta-analysis by Ralston et al. (9). The

authors reported that for strength in multi-joint exercises (as used in this study), moderate-to-

high weekly set volume routines (defined as 6 or more sets per week) are more effective than

low weekly set volume routines (defined as ≤5 sets per week). Albeit, it should be made clear

that the ES difference was rather small (ES: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.34). While in this study, the

1SET group did perform the least amount of volume, their total weekly volume of 6 to 9 sets per

muscle group would be classified as a moderate volume in the Ralston et al. (9) review. To allow

direct comparison of our results with the meta-analysis mentioned-above an additional group that

trained with 5 or fewer sets per week would need to be included. Also, it needs to be pointed out

that the studies included in the meta-analysis by Ralston et al (9) used exercise prescriptions and

loading schemes that were different to those employed in the present study. Given the

differences in the weekly set configurations, it is difficult to compare these results with the meta-

analysis by Ralston et al. (9).

Three individual studies thus far have employed a comparable study design. Radaelli et

al. (21) compared the effects of 6, 18, and 30 weekly sets per muscle group. All groups increased

strength post-intervention in all 4 tested exercises. However, for the bench press and lat-

pulldown exercises, the 30 weekly set group experienced greater increases than the two other

groups. Given that their subjects did not have any RT experience it might be that the greater

strength gains in the 30 weekly set group are due to the greater opportunities to practice the

exercise and thus an enhanced „learning‟ effect (22). Also, their intervention lasted 6 months

while the present study had a duration of 8 weeks. It might be that higher training volumes

become of greater importance for strength gains over longer time courses; future studies

exploring this topic using longer duration interventions are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Marshall et al. (10) examined the effects of three different doses of volume on barbell

back squat strength. The authors compared the effect of 2, 8, and 16 weekly sets of squats (the

only resistance exercise for lower-body) and reported that the 16 weekly sets group increased

strength significantly greater than the 2 weekly sets group. While the authors did include trained

men, the main part of the training intervention lasted 6 weeks with a twice-weekly frequency,

which differs from the present study design. The authors employed mid-point testing following

3-weeks of training and found that the 8 and 16 weekly set volume groups increased strength

from baseline while the 2 weekly set group did not. Following the remaining 3-weeks, all groups

increased strength from their baseline values. However, the 16 weekly set group had greater

increases than the 2, but not the 8 set group. While we did not employ mid-point testing, it

remains possible that the higher volume groups increased strength to a greater point during the

initial phases (e.g., in the first 4 weeks), and that these gains then leveled-off between the groups

by the end of the intervention. Furthermore, it might be that subjects in the high-volume group

approached an overtraining (i.e. non-functional overreaching) status towards the end of the

training program, which might have impacted their levels of strength at the post-assessment.

Future studies done on this topic might consider employing multiple strength testing points

during the intervention to explore if there are any differences in the time-course of muscular

strength accrual between different volumes of training.

Ostrowski et al. (11) reported that following 10-weeks of training, all groups increased

upper and lower-body strength with no significant between-group differences. Taken together

with the findings of Ostrowski et al. (11), our results would imply that for strength

improvements, there is a certain threshold of volume that can be employed in a training program,

over which further increases in volume are not advantageous, and might only delay recovery

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
from exercise. From a strength perspective, the findings would imply that a lower training

volume routine is equally effective to a higher training volume routine. Furthermore, a lower

volume approach would be a more time-efficient way of training, which might ultimately

facilitate better adherence given that time is commonly purported as a factor influencing training

adherence (23, 24). Indeed, the subjects in the 1SET group, on average, trained ~13 minutes per

training session, while the 3SET and 5SET groups trained ~40 and ~68 minutes, respectively. It

should be made clear that our results are specific to training in the 8-12 RM range. It is possible

that a different pattern would emerge if the subjects trained with higher (or lower) loads. For

instance, training in the 1-5 RM zone might require more volume, given that there would be less

„practice‟ with a lower repetition range. Future studies, therefore, might consider using a more

strength-specific repetition range to further explore this topic.

Muscle Hypertrophy

The results of the present study show a graded dose-response relationship between

training volume and muscle hypertrophy in a sample of resistance-trained men. Our findings

essentially mirror recent meta-analytic data showing a dose-response relationship between

volume and hypertrophy (6). The present study indicates that substantially greater training

volumes may be beneficial in enhancing muscle growth in those with previous RT experience, at

least over an 8-week training period. Hypertrophy for 3 of the 4 measured muscles was

significantly greater for the highest versus lowest volume condition. Only the elbow extensors

did not show statistically greater increases in MT between conditions. However, only the 5SET

condition showed a significant pre- to post-study increase in elbow extensor growth, whereas

measures of hypertrophy in the lower volume conditions (i.e., 1SET and 3SET groups) were not

statistically different. Moreover, a dose-response relationship was seen for the magnitude of

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
effect in elbow extensor thickness changes, with ES values of 0.12, 0.30, and 0.55 for the low,

moderate, and high volume conditions, respectively.

The vast majority of previous research investigating the effects of varying RT volumes

on muscular adaptations has been carried out in those without RT experience. Only one previous

study endeavored to examine the dose-response relationship (i.e., a minimum of three different

set volumes) between training volume and muscle growth in resistance-trained individuals using

site-specific measures of hypertrophy (11). In the 10-week study, resistance-trained men were

allocated either to a: (a) low volume group (3-7 sets per muscle group per week); (b) moderate

volume group (6-14 sets per muscle group per week); or (c) high volume group (12-28 sets per

muscle group per week). Results showed that percent changes and ESs for muscle growth in the

elbow extensors and quadriceps femoris favored the high-volume group. However, no

statistically significant differences were noted between groups. When comparing the results of

Ostrowski et al. (11) to the present study, there were notable similarities that lend support to the

role of volume as a potent driver of hypertrophy. Changes in triceps brachii MT in Ostrowski et

al. (11) study were 2.2% for the lowest volume condition (7 sets per muscle/week) and 4.7% for

the highest volume condition (28 sets per muscle/week). Similarly, our study showed changes in

elbow extensor MT of 1.1% versus 5.5% for the lowest (6 sets per muscle/week) versus highest

(30 sets per muscle/week) volume conditions, respectively. Regarding lower-body hypertrophy,

Ostrowski et al. (11) showed an increase of 6.8% in quadriceps MT for the lowest volume

condition (3 sets per muscle/week) while growth in the highest volume condition (12 sets per

muscle/week) was 13.1%. Again, these findings are fairly consistent with those of the present

study, which found an increase in mid-thigh hypertrophy of 3.4% versus 12.5% and lateral thigh

hypertrophy of 5.0% versus 13.7% in the lowest and highest volume conditions, respectively. It

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
should be noted that the lower-body volume was substantially greater in our study for all

conditions compared to Ostrowski et al. (11). Interestingly, the group performing the lowest

volume for the lower-body performed 9 sets in our study, which approaches the highest volume

condition in Ostrowski et al. (11), yet much greater levels of volume were required to achieve

similar hypertrophic responses in the quadriceps. The reason for these discrepancies remains

unclear.

Muscle Endurance

All conditions showed similar improvements in the test used for assessing muscular

endurance (i.e., the 50%BP test). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that

investigated the dose-response effects of training volume on muscular endurance adaptations in

trained men. Similar to the findings presented for strength, all groups increased muscular

endurance from pre-to-post with no significant between-group differences. These findings

indicate that training for improvements in muscular abilities such as strength and muscular

endurance warrants a different volume prescription than when the training goal is muscular

hypertrophy. These differences in the dose-response curves might be because muscular abilities

such as endurance have a significant skill component to it. In other words, adaptations such as

muscular endurance, are, to a certain extent, influenced by motor learning (i.e., individuals learn

the specific patterns of muscle recruitment associated with performance of a given task) (25).

Indeed, studies that utilized training programs in which one group trained with a repetition range

that mimics the strength test, while the other group trained with a repetition range which was

more similar to the endurance test, show that the latter had greater improvements in muscular

endurance; albeit, not in all tested muscle groups (22). Furthermore, it is also relevant to

emphasize that the participants in all of the three training groups trained used similar loading

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
conditions. Therefore, while we did not directly assess this variable, all of the participants did

likely experience similar levels of discomfort associated with exercise (26). Level of discomfort

might be an important variable to consider given that the ability to better tolerate discomfort may

contribute to the increase in high-intensity exercise tolerance (exercise such as the 50%BP test)

(27). Thus, given that the discomfort with training was likely similar between the groups, this

might explain the comparable increases in muscular endurance in all three groups. Future studies

done on this topic may wish to explore this hypothesis further.

To the best of our knowledge, only one study examined the dose-response effects

between volume and muscular endurance adaptations; albeit, this work was done in untrained

individuals. In their study, Radaelli et al. (21) reported the 16 set and 30 set groups increased

muscular endurance pre-to-post intervention as assessed by the 20 RM bench press test. The

increases in the 30-set group were greater than in the 16 set group, and also, the increase in the

16 set group was greater than the values observed in the 6-set group. For lower-body, there was a

significant increase in muscular endurance in all groups, and the greatest increase was seen in the

30-set group. Again, as with strength, it might be that more practice in the higher volume group

resulted in greater gains in muscular endurance. Given that the Radaelli et al. (21) study included

untrained individuals and their training program lasted for 6 months, the comparison of their

results with the results of the present study remains limited. Also, in the present study, we

assessed only upper-body muscular endurance. Therefore, these results cannot necessarily be

generalized to the lower-body musculature. Future work among trained individuals on this topic

is warranted.

Limitations

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 The study had several limitations that must be taken into account when attempting to

draw evidence-based inferences. First, all subjects reported performing multi-set routines prior to

the onset of the study and a majority did not regularly train to momentary failure. It is unclear

how the novelty of altering these variables affected the respective groups. Second, the upper-

body musculature was trained exclusively with multi-joint exercises. These exercises involve

extensive involvement of the elbow flexors and elbow extensors, as shown in the significant arm

muscle hypertrophy achieved with their consistent use (28, 29). Indeed, research indicates

similar changes both in upper arm MT and circumference when performing multi- vs single joint

exercises in untrained and trained individuals, respectively (30, 31). That said, it remains

possible that single-joint exercises for the arm musculature may become more important to

hypertrophy when training with low volumes; further study on the topic is warranted. Third,

measurements of MT were obtained only at the mid-portion of the muscle belly. Although this

region is often used as a proxy of the overall growth of a given muscle, research indicates that

hypertrophy manifests in a regional-specific manner, with greater gains sometimes seen at the

proximal and/or distal aspects (32, 33). While it is possible that differences in training volumes

may have resulted in differential segmental hypertrophy of a given muscle that was not detected

by our assessment method, there does not appear to be a sound rationale by which this would

occur from manipulating volume, making it unlikely that this confounded results. Fourth,

although subjects were instructed not to perform any additional exercise training during the

study, we cannot entirely rule out that they failed to follow our guidelines. Fifth, the study had a

relatively small sample size and thus may have been somewhat underpowered to detect

significant changes between groups in certain outcomes. Sixth, while ultrasound is a well-

established method of assessing changes in markers of muscle hypertrophy, it is not clear how

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the magnitude of the reported changes impact aesthetic appearance. Finally, findings of our study

are specific to young resistance-trained men and, therefore, cannot necessarily be generalized to

other populations including adolescents, women, and older adults.

Conclusion

The present study shows that marked increases in strength can be attained by resistance-

trained individuals with just three, 13-minute sessions per week, and that gains are similar to that

achieved with a substantially greater time commitment when training in a moderate loading

range (8-12 repetitions per set). This finding has important implications for those who are time-

pressed, allowing the ability to get stronger in an efficient manner, and may help to promote

greater exercise adherence in the general public. Alternatively, we show that increases in muscle

hypertrophy follow a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with

higher training volumes. Thus, those seeking to maximize muscular growth need to allot a

greater amount of weekly time to achieve this goal. Further research is warranted to determine

how these findings apply to resistance individuals in other populations such as women and the

elderly. Volume does not appear to have any differential effects on measures of upper-body

muscular endurance.

Acknowledgements: We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to the following research

assistants, without whom this study could not have taken place: Patricia Fuentes, Shamel Jaime,

Andriy Karp, Francis Turbi, Christian Morales, Paco Almanzar, Chris Morrison, Lexis Beato,

Chaochi Lee, Elisha Edwards, Shailyn Mock, Leila Nasr, Antoine Steward, Miguel Villafone,

Solyi Lee, Joseph Ohmer, Marisela Santana, Chicneccu Forde, Jonathan Mejia, Martin Bueno,

Kevin Carranza, MaChris Dampor, Mark Cells, Jason Abas, Abdul Pressley, Jonathan Davila,

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Griselda Acevedo and Maria Hernandez. We also wish to thank Dymatize Nutrition for

supplying the protein supplements used in the study. Finally, we are grateful to Andrew Vigotsky

for his advice and recommendations on the statistical analyses. The results of this study are

presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data

manipulation, and do not constitute endorsement by ACSM.

This study was supported by a PSC CUNY grant from the State of New York.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
References

1. Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, et al. Training to Fatigue: The Answer for

Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy? Sports Med. 2017; 47(6):1021-7.

2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise

prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(4):674-88.

3. Burd NA, Holwerda AM, Selby KC, et al. Resistance exercise volume affects myofibrillar

protein synthesis and anabolic signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men. J Physiol.

2010; 588(Pt 16):3119-30.

4. Terzis G, Spengos K, Mascher H, Georgiadis G, Manta P, Blomstrand E. The degree of p70

S6k and S6 phosphorylation in human skeletal muscle in response to resistance exercise depends

on the training volume. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 110(4):835-43.

5. Halperin I, Vigotsky AD, Foster C, Pyne DB. Strengthening the Practice of Exercise and Sport

Science. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017:1-26.

6. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance

training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports

Sci. 2016:1-10.

7. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength

development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training

prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(4):950-8.

8. Coffey VG, Zhong Z, Shield A, et al. Early signaling responses to divergent exercise stimuli

in skeletal muscle from well-trained humans. FASEB J. 2006; 20(1):190-2.

9. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength

Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2017; 47(12):2585-601.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
10. Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW. Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following

one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl

Physiol. 2011; 111(12):3007-16.

11. Ostrowski K, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Little AD. The effect of weight training

volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength Cond Res. 1997; 11:149-

54.

12. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly

resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Sports Sci. 2017; 35(11):1073-82.

13. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomee R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and

mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;

37(3):225-64.

14. Baechle TR, RW Earle. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 2008.

15. Coburn JW, MH Malek. NSCA's Essentials of Personal Training. 2011.

16. Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-

sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci

Sports. 2018; 28(3):846-53.

17. Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Ito M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. The accuracy of volume

estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements in different muscle groups. Eur J

Appl Physiol. 2004; 91(2-3):264-72.

18. Abe T, Kawakami Y, Suzuki Y, Gunji A, Fukunaga T. Effects of 20 days bed rest on muscle

morphology. J Gravit Physiol. 1997; 4(1):S10-4.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
19. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time course for arm and chest

muscle thickness changes following bench press training. Interventional Medicine and Applied

Science. 2012; 4(4):217-20.

20. Raftery AE. Bayesian model selection in social research. In: Marsden PV, editor.

Sociological Methodology

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell; 1995, p. 111-196.

21. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, et al. Dose Response of 1, 3 and 5 Sets of Resistance Exercise

on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance and Hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;

29(5):1349-58.

22. Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Practicing the

Test Produces Strength Equivalent To Higher Volume Training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;

49(9):1945-54.

23. Gibala MJ. High-intensity interval training: a time-efficient strategy for health promotion?

Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007; 6(4):211-3.

24. Siddiqi Z, Tiro JA, Shuval K. Understanding impediments and enablers to physical activity

among African American adults: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Health Educ Res.

2011; 26(6):1010-24.

25. Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG. Neural adaptations to resistance training: implications for

movement control. Sports Med. 2001; 31(12):829-40.

26. Stuart C, Steele J, Gentil P, Giessing J, Fisher JP. Fatigue and perceptual responses of

heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise in males and females.

PeerJ. 2018; 6:e4523.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
27. O'Leary TJ, Collett J, Howells K, Morris MG. High but not moderate-intensity endurance

training increases pain tolerance: a randomised trial. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017; 117(11):2201-10.

28. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- Versus

High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J

Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29(10):2954-63.

29. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Peterson M. Differential Effects of Heavy Versus

Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. J Sports

Sci Med. 2016; 15(4):715-22.

30. Gentil P, Soares S, Bottaro M. Single vs. Multi-Joint Resistance Exercises: Effects on

Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy. Asian J Sports Med. 2015; 6(2):e24057.

31. de Franca HS, Branco PA, Guedes Junior DP, Gentil P, Steele J, Teixeira CV. The effects of

adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on upper body

muscle strength and size in trained men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2015; 40(8):822-6.

32. Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy: its

relation to muscle activation in training session. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013; 45(11):2158-65.

33. Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, et al. Association between regional differences in

muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in muscle hypertrophy after resistance

training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012; 112(4):1569-76.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure Captions

FIGURE 1: Flow chart of data collection process.

FIGURE 2: Pre- to post-study changes in muscle strength and endurance for each condition. 2A:

1RM bench press; 2B: 1RM squat. Values for 1RMBENCH and RMSQUAT are in kilograms; values

for 50%BP are in repetitions.

FIGURE 3: Pre- to post-study changes in muscle thickness for each condition. 3A: Elbow

flexors; 3B: Elbow extensors; 3C: Mid-Thigh; 3D: Lateral thigh. All values are in millimeters.

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 1

Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.