What did the Brigatto (2019) study find about very high training volumes?

The Brigatto study compared 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets, finding that the higher volume groups (24 and 32 sets) generally experienced greater hypertrophy in triceps and quads. A key feature was the one-minute rest intervals between sets, and participants had a history of relatively high training volumes before the study.

Are 'untrained' participants in research studies truly untrained, and how does this affect results?

The term 'untrained' in research can be misleading. For instance, the Radaelli (2015) study described subjects as untrained, but they were Brazilian naval recruits with extensive calisthenics experience. This prior training could explain why even 'low' volume groups in such studies might not show significant growth if it's less than their habitual volume, or why higher volumes are effective due to pre-existing adaptation.

Can high training volumes be maintained over long periods, or do benefits diminish?

The Radaelli (2015) study, at six months, is the longest on this topic and found the largest effect in favor of high volume training. This suggests that over longer time scales, higher volumes might become increasingly efficacious, rather than strictly diminishing after a short period. However, more long-term research is needed to make definitive claims.

Did the Schoenfeld et al. study confirm the benefits of very high volume training?

The Schoenfeld et al. study, designed similarly to Radaelli's but shorter (8 weeks), also showed overall trends (though often not statistically significant) of higher volumes leading to more muscle growth across multiple muscle groups (biceps, triceps, quads). The results were similar in direction but lesser in magnitude to the six-month Radaelli study.

Why is 'blinding of assessors' a frequent criticism in resistance training research, and is it valid?

Blinding of assessors (e.g., ultrasound technicians) is ideal to prevent bias, conscious or unconscious. However, in exercise science, this is often impractical due to resource constraints, such as limited trained personnel. Critics sometimes use this as a reason to dismiss studies, but in many cases, it doesn't indicate malicious intent or data manipulation, and the impact on results is often overstated given the study's context.

What did the Oberto (2022) and Amirthalingam (GVT) studies conclude about high volume?

The Oberto (2022) study found no significant differences in quad hypertrophy between 12, 18, and 24 sets per week in trained individuals, suggesting a potential plateau at lower volumes for some. The Amirthalingam (GVT) study also reported no difference or slightly more lean mass gain with lower volume (5 sets vs. 10 sets of 10) in German Volume Training, though lean mass measurements and body weight differences were confounding factors.

How does 'anchoring effect' influence the interpretation of research, particularly for high volume training?

The 'anchoring effect' occurs when the first study on a topic disproportionately influences how later research is interpreted. The Ostrowski (1997) study, being the first to compare moderate and high volumes (14 vs 28 sets for triceps, showed similar growth), likely anchored beliefs towards a plateau at moderate volumes for nearly two decades, potentially leading to skepticism about subsequent studies finding benefits for higher volumes.

How can one make high volume training more practical given time constraints?

Strategies include using paired supersets (antagonistic or non-overlapping exercises) to halve workout time, incorporating drop sets for time-efficient volume, minimizing warm-up time by integrating it into early working sets, and performing 'exercise snacks' throughout the day (e.g., quick sets of push-ups or curls at home). Staying focused and avoiding phone distractions during gym time also greatly improves efficiency.

Does muscle swelling account for reported hypertrophy in high volume studies?

While acute muscle damage and swelling do occur, particularly with unaccustomed exercise, research indicates the body quickly adapts. Studies on the 'repeated bout effect' show that muscle swelling significantly attenuates after just one or two exposures to a damaging protocol. After weeks of high-volume training, it's highly improbable that reported hypertrophy is merely an illusion of swelling; rather, it's likely true muscle growth after habituation.

How do rest times influence the effectiveness of training volume for hypertrophy?

Longer rest times (e.g., 3 minutes) generally make each set more effective for hypertrophy compared to shorter rest times (e.g., 1 minute). If you prefer shorter rest intervals, you'll likely need to perform more sets to achieve the same total hypertrophic stimulus as someone resting longer. The key is adjusting total volume in relation to rest interval duration.

Is it beneficial to run high volume specialization cycles even for non-advanced lifters?

Yes, there is merit in high volume specialization cycles for any lifter, assuming other muscle groups are maintained at sufficient volume (e.g., 10-20 sets/week). Training status should be viewed by consistency and difficulty of progressing rather than absolute strength/muscularity. For personal enjoyment and experimentation, trying specialization phases can be motivating and productive, with minimal risk as the body provides warnings before true overtraining.

Should I increase my training volume if I'm already progressing well with my current volume?

If you're happy with your progress and current training, there's no inherent need to change. However, if your goal is to maximize muscle growth, and you feel adequately recovered (e.g., fresh after sessions), increasing volume (especially from a lower starting point like 10-15 sets/week) could lead to further gains. If current sessions are already difficult, adding more might be counterproductive. The decision depends on your goals and current recovery.

Extreme Volumes, Extreme Gains? (Part 2) (Episode 128)

Stronger By Science

Sports7 min read280 min video

Mar 6, 2024|5,474 views|156|53

Save to Pod

Key Moments

On this page

TL;DR

High volume training for hypertrophy remains debated but current research suggests benefits beyond 20 sets per week for some.

Key Insights

Most studies suggest a dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy, with benefits extending beyond 20 sets/week, potentially up to 30-45 sets/week for some muscle groups.

The longest-term study (6 months) showed the strongest evidence for very high volumes (30-45 sets/week), suggesting benefits may accrue more significantly over longer durations.

Shorter rest intervals (1-2 minutes) might necessitate higher total set counts to achieve similar hypertrophy compared to longer rest intervals (3+ minutes).

Individual training history and adaptation play a crucial role; abruptly jumping to very high volumes if unaccustomed may not be productive.

Swelling or muscle damage is unlikely to confound hypertrophy measurements in longitudinal studies, as the repeated bout effect attenuates these responses over time.

Practical strategies for incorporating higher volumes include paired supersets (antagonistic or non-overlapping) and prioritizing specific muscle groups while maintaining others.

REVISITING HIGH-VOLUME TRAINING: AN OVERVIEW OF PRIOR RESEARCH

Building on prior discussions, this episode delves deeper into the efficacy of very high-volume resistance training for muscle hypertrophy, specifically examining volumes exceeding 20 sets per muscle group per week. Historically, research on high volumes was scarce, with earlier meta-analyses primarily addressing whether multiple sets were superior to single sets. Only in recent years have larger studies emerged, probing the upper limits of the volume-hypertrophy relationship. The discussion recap from the previous episode highlighted a study by Enes and colleagues, which indicated continued muscle growth up to 37 sets per week, setting the stage for the current exploration into extremely high training volumes.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIGHER VOLUMES (>20 SETS/WEEK)

Several studies offer support for the benefits of higher training volumes. The Brigato study compared 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets, finding that the 32-set group generally achieved the best hypertrophy for triceps and quads. Notably, participants in this study had high pre-study training volumes, suggesting their ability to tolerate and benefit from increased load. The infamous Rędel stud, lasting six months, showed greater hypertrophy for 30-45 weekly sets (for biceps/triceps) compared to 6-9 or 18-27 sets, representing the longest and strongest evidence in favor of very high volumes. Similarly, a study by Schoenfeld and colleagues, using comparable volumes, found non-significant but consistent trends of increased growth with higher training volumes for quads, biceps, and triceps.

CONSIDERATIONS WITH REST INTERVALS AND TRAINING QUALITY

An important factor influencing the effectiveness of training volume is the rest interval between sets. Studies like Brigato and Rędel, showing a benefit for higher volumes, often utilized shorter rest periods (1-2 minutes). Conversely, some studies that did not find benefits for very high volumes tended to use longer rest intervals (around 3 minutes). This suggests a potential interaction: shorter rest times might necessitate a higher number of sets to accumulate sufficient effective stimulus, while longer rest periods could make each set more potent, thus requiring fewer total sets. Training to failure, as in many of these studies, also influences set effectiveness, making each set more stimulating regardless of volume.

STUDIES NOT REFLECTING SUPERIORITY OF VERY HIGH VOLUMES

Not all research universally supports extreme volumes. The Ǒbí study, involving experienced lifters over 8 weeks, found no significant difference in quad hypertrophy between 12, 18, and 24 sets. This might be influenced by the relatively short study duration for trained individuals or the participants' lower pre-study volumes, making a sudden jump to 24 sets less effective. The Amirthalingam German Volume Training study, comparing 5 vs. 10 sets per exercise over 12 weeks, observed no major differences in lean body mass changes, and even suggested slightly better outcomes with lower volumes. However, this study relied on DEXA scans for hypertrophy, which are less precise than direct muscle measurements, and one group gained significantly more body weight, potentially confounding the analysis.

THE 'HEsselgrave' STUDY AND THE 'ESTROZI' STUDY: AMBIGUOUS FINDINGS

The Hesselgrave study, a 6-week intervention comparing 9, 18, and 27 sets for biceps in trained men, yielded non-significant results, with only modest growth across all groups. This short duration may have been insufficient to detect meaningful differences. The Estrozi study (1997), one of the earliest to investigate volumes beyond 20 sets, compared 7, 14, and 28 sets for triceps. It found that 14 and 28 sets were superior to 7 sets, but 14 and 28 sets produced similar hypertrophy. This study, being the first in its niche, might have produced an anchoring effect, influencing later interpretations of extreme volume that were perhaps overly conservative.

CRITIQUING THE BENITO META-ANALYSIS: APPLES-TO-ORANGES COMPARISON

The Benito meta-analysis is often controversially cited as evidence against high volumes. However, this meta-analysis is an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison, pooling studies with diverse methodologies and outcomes (e.g., lean body mass, fat-free mass, various measurement tools). It was not specifically designed to examine the dose-response relationship between training volume and hypertrophy using direct muscle measurements. Its conclusion that higher sets per session negatively affect muscle mass gain is highly suspect given the uncontrolled confounding variables. For instance, the same meta-analysis also suggested that higher training status led to greater increases in fat-free mass, an inference that most would find biologically implausible if interpreted causally, highlighting the limitations of meta-regression in drawing direct causal links in such varied contexts.

DECIPHERING THE BUCKNER, MORENO, & BAXTER NARRATIVE REVIEW

A recent narrative review by Buckner, Moreno, and Baxter questioned the conviction around volume-hypertrophy relationships in trained individuals. While scientific skepticism is valued, their approach had limitations. As a narrative review, it selectively included or excluded studies (e.g., omitting triceps, where high-volume benefits are strongly evidenced) and began with the aim of casting doubt. Their criticism of hypertrophy magnitudes in Schoenfeld's studies as 'unrealistic' by comparing absolute centimeter changes across different muscles and measurement sites was deemed uncharitable. Percentages, which would offer a more standardized comparison, actually show similar growth in some 'control' studies (e.g., Ǒbí) and other labs, making the 'unrealistic' claim less robust.

DIMINISHING RETURNS AND THE UPPER CEILING OF VOLUME

The current body of evidence, while still emerging for extremely high volumes, suggests a logarithmic relationship between training volume and muscle growth. Most gains come from the initial sets, with diminishing marginal returns as volume increases. However, the 'hard plateau' where further volume yields no additional growth has likely not been reached by 30-40 sets per week for many individuals, according to the weight of the research. Factors like individual capacity, prior training volume, and rest intervals heavily influence this ceiling. For instance, individuals accustomed to lower volumes might struggle to adapt to an abrupt jump to 30-40 sets, but can progressively increase their tolerance over time.

OVERTRAINING AND SWELLING: MISCONCEPTIONS IN VOLUME DEBATE

Concerns about 'overtraining' and muscle swelling confounding hypertrophy measurements in high-volume studies are often overstated. Overtraining syndrome is rare in resistance training, even among athletes, and the body provides clear warning signs of excessive training (e.g., performance drops, prolonged soreness, sleep disturbances). Regarding swelling, most studies measure hypertrophy 48-72 hours post-training, allowing acute edema to dissipate. Crucially, the 'repeated bout effect' significantly attenuates muscle damage and swelling responses with repeated exposures to exercise. Studies show that even highly damaging protocols lead to negligible swelling after just a few sessions, making it highly improbable that swelling substantially inflates hypertrophy numbers in longitudinal high-volume studies.

INTENSITY OF EFFORT IN RESEARCH SETTINGS

The notion that study participants might not train to the prescribed intensity (e.g., 'to failure') is largely unsupported. Research settings often provide strong incentives for participants, including financial compensation, direct supervision, and encouragement from research assistants, creating an environment conducive to maximal effort. Accuracy in estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) is also generally high in lab contexts, particularly closer to failure. The intensity of effort observed in exercise science labs often rivals that of dedicated athletic training facilities, suggesting that participants are indeed pushing themselves as hard as mandated by the study protocols.

PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR HIGH-VOLUME INCORPORATION

For individuals aiming to maximize hypertrophy, strategically incorporating higher volumes (20-40+ sets/week) can be beneficial, especially for priority muscle groups. Practical methods to achieve this while managing recovery and time constraints include: 1) **Paired Supersets:** Antagonistic supersets (e.g., bench press with rows) or non-overlapping supersets can significantly increase total volume in less time without compromising performance or recovery of individual muscle groups. 2) **Prioritization:** Focusing on 1-2 muscle groups with very high volume while maintaining others at lower, maintenance-level volumes. This aligns with anecdotal 'specialization' phases that have proven effective. 3) **Progressive Overload:** Gradually increasing volume over time rather than making sudden, drastic jumps, allowing the body to adapt to increasing loads. 4) **Consider Rest Times:** If short rest times are preferred, more sets may be needed to achieve the desired stimulus. Conversely, longer rest times might allow for fewer total sets at higher effectiveness.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Products

●Software & Apps

●Companies

●Organizations

●Studies Cited

●Concepts

●People Referenced

High Volume Training Practical Guide

Practical takeaways from this episode

Do This

Gradually increase training volume by 10-20% weekly until recovery becomes noticeably harder.

Stick with a challenging volume level for 3-4 weeks, then increase if it gets easier.

Consider using paired supersets (antagonistic or non-overlapping) to save time while maintaining volume.

Incorporate drop sets for time efficiency, especially for exercises where changing load is easy (e.g., machines).

Be present and minimize distractions (like phones) during workouts to maximize efficiency.

Integrate 'exercise snacks' throughout the day (e.g., push-ups, tricep extensions) for easy additional volume.

Minimize warm-up time by starting with lighter weights that also serve as effective working sets or by inverting workout order to start with less demanding exercises.

Experiment with machine-based exercises as they often require less setup time.

If chasing maximum growth, lean towards higher volumes (up to 30-40 sets per muscle group per week) once adapted.

Regularly assess performance as a reliable proxy for recovery and overtraining status.

Avoid This

Do not solely rely on DEXA scans for hypertrophy assessment; prefer direct muscle measurements like ultrasound.

Avoid making strong causal inferences from meta-regressions with many uncontrolled variables.

Do not overgeneralize from single studies, especially those with atypical results or short durations.

Do not disregard studies simply because they show less growth for lower volume groups in 'untrained' individuals if those individuals had prior calisthenics or military training.

Do not assume training to failure is impossible or unproductive based on personal discomfort; trained individuals in a research setting are often highly motivated.

Do not instantly triple your training volume overnight; gradual progression is key.

Be cautious about exceeding an overall weekly volume of 160 sets, especially with heavy compound lifts, unless specializing on specific muscle groups.

Avoid excessive focus on maximal strength protocols if muscle hypertrophy is the primary goal, and be open to different workout structures.

Don't feel pressured to maximize muscle growth if it conflicts with other life priorities; 'good enough' progress is valid and healthy.

Common Questions

Recent research, especially the Enis and colleagues study, suggests that muscle growth can continue increasing up to 37 sets per week and potentially even higher, exceeding the previously common belief of 10-20 sets being the upper limit. However, the exact 'hard plateau' where further volume yields no additional benefits is still being investigated.

Topics

Training Research Training Recovery Specialization Cycles Practical Training Tips

Mentioned in this video

organizationUniversity of Tampa

Mentioned in relation to a study on myo-reps that was presented as a poster but not formally published, and other un-replicated findings.

personVincent Gironda

A figure representing the 'high volume' side of historical training debates.

studySchoenfeld et al. (2019)

Compared 9, 27, and 45 sets of triceps and 6, 18, and 30 sets of biceps for 8 weeks, showing trends towards more growth with higher volumes across muscle groups, similar to Radaelli but with lesser magnitude.

studyAmirthalingam et al. (2016)

12-week study comparing two German Volume Training approaches (5 vs 10 sets of 10 reps per exercise), generally finding no difference or slightly more growth with lower volumes. Used DEXA scans, and involved differences in body weight gain between groups.

conceptPaired Supersets

A time-efficient technique where two exercises are performed consecutively with minimal rest. Can be antagonistic (opposing muscles) or non-overlapping (unrelated muscles). Research generally supports similar performance and hypertrophy to traditional sets but with reduced training time.

organizationMDPI

A publisher group mentioned in the context of publishing fees and copyediting quality, highlighting broader issues within scientific publishing.

studyRadaelli et al. (2015)

Six-month study with 'untrained' Brazilian naval recruits comparing 1, 3, and 5 sets per exercise, showing greater hypertrophy with higher volumes (30-45 sets for biceps/triceps). Longest study on volume, with a large observed effect.

studyHasselgren et al. (2020)

Six-week study with trained subjects comparing 9, 18, and 27 sets for biceps, finding no significant differences though nominal changes favored higher volumes. Considered short and underpowered, making clear conclusions difficult.

conceptSmolov Program

A very high-volume strength training program discussed in the context of personal anecdotes about managing training volume and systemic recovery burden.

conceptDrop Sets

A time-efficient training technique involving performing a set to failure, immediately reducing the load, and continuing with another set. Meta-analyses suggest similar hypertrophy to traditional training but with significant time savings.

personRook Lobstore

A Reddit user who submitted a question regarding tracking indirect volume.

personGeorge Zapat

A listener who submitted a question about high-volume specialization cycles for non-advanced lifters.

personDaniel Plotkin

Acknowledged for providing information and insights that helped contextualize the discussion on 'unrealistic hypertrophy' in Schoenfeld's studies.

personChris Barakat

Co-author of an unpublished myo-reps study abstract from the University of Tampa.

conceptMyo-Reps

A training technique to get high effective volume in less time by taking minimal rest between small sets. Lack of published research makes it less recommended than drop sets.

personDany D'Souza

Senior author of the Amirthalingam study on German Volume Training and co-author of an unpublished myo-reps study abstract.

studyOberto et al. (2022)

Eight-week study on resistance-trained subjects comparing 12, 18, and 24 sets for quads, finding no significant difference in hypertrophy. It highlighted the potential influence of prior training volumes on responsiveness.

studyBuckner, Moreno, & Baxter (2023)

A narrative review titled 'The dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: There are still doubts,' which aims to express skepticism about the strength of evidence for high volume training. Critiqued for its methodology and selective interpretation.

studyMargaritelli et al. (2020)

A 10-week study showing that after 8 cumulative sessions, even brutal eccentric training ceased to cause detectable muscle damage, supporting the speed of the repeated bout effect and habituation.

organizationJournal of Applied Physiology

A scientific journal where research on training status categorization was discussed.

organizationInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

The publishing venue for the Benito et al. meta-analysis, criticized for its review process and potential lack of rigor in some areas.

studyBenito et al. (2020)

A meta-analysis of 111 studies on whole-body muscle growth, criticized for its methods, broad scope (not specific to volume), and the unreliable nature of its meta-regression to draw causal inferences about volume and hypertrophy.

studyLong et al. (2022)

Compared different rest periods (1 vs 3 minutes) and found that shorter rest periods with additional sets could achieve similar hypertrophy to longer rest periods with fewer sets, given equated volume load.

companyBulkSupplements

A partner offering affordable, high-quality supplements with a 5% discount using code 'spsppod'.

studyOstrowski et al. (1997)

Early 10-week study comparing 7, 14, and 28 sets for triceps, with 14 and 28 sets showing similar, superior growth compared to 7 sets. For rectus femoris, 4 sets were better than 1 or 2. This study provided an 'anchoring effect' in early volume research.

studyPlotkin, Plotkin, and Plotkin (2017)

A meta-analysis on rest intervals in resistance training, cited for its findings on how rest time influences muscle growth. Note: The name was misspoken, it's 'Grgic and Schoenfeld (2017)', not Plotkin et al.

toolExercise Snacks