STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000363

Evidence-based guidelines for resistance training volume to maximize muscle hypertrophy

*Brad Schoenfeld1
Jozo Grgic2

D
Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA
2
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne,
Australia

TE
*Corresponding author
Brad Jon Schoenfeld, PhD, CSCS, CSPS, FNSCA
Lehman College
Bronx, NY UNITED STATES

Abstract
The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is widely considered an essential strategy
EP
to maximize muscular adaptations. One variable that has received substantial attention in this
regard is RT volume. This paper provides evidence-based guidelines as to volume when creating
RT programs designed to maximize muscle hypertrophy.
C
C
A

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1

Introduction

Muscle mass is important from a human health standpoint, as it plays a significant role in

locomotion, force production, and glucose disposal (7). Low levels of muscle mass may lead to

an increased risk of several diseases such as type II diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and

D
cardiovascular disease (15, 34). Moreover, there is a positive correlation between muscle mass

and many aspects of athletic performance (3) and overall muscle size is a primary consideration

TE
in bodybuilding competition (13). Resistance training (RT) is the primary form of exercise that is

used to induce gains in muscle mass.

The manipulation of RT variables is widely considered an essential strategy to maximize

exercise-induced muscular adaptations (17). One RT variable that has received a great deal of
EP
attention in this regard, particularly with respect to enhancing muscle hypertrophy, is the volume

of training. RT volume is commonly defined as the total amount of work performed and can be

expressed in several ways. The number of sets performed for a given exercise is perhaps the
C

most common way this variable is reported in the hypertrophy literature (31). Another popular

method for quantifying RT volume is the total number of repetitions performed per exercise (i.e.
C

sets multiplied by repetitions) (33). Finally, volume load (VL) has been proposed by some to be

perhaps the most appropriate metric, whereby the total number of repetitions is multiplied by the
A

amount of weight used in an exercise across sets (27). There is evidence that VL is a good proxy

measure for muscular work (21). Displacement can also be considered in the volume equation, as

those with longer limbs ultimately perform more work than those with shorter limbs (11). All of

these measures can be considered viable ways to gauge RT volume since no consensus currently

exists as to a definitive metric. Assuming all other variables are kept constant, increasing volume

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 2

will necessarily increase time-under-tension, which has been proposed as an important driver of

anabolism (6). Table 1 summarizes the basic advantages and disadvantages of each method of

quantifying RT volume.

Controversy continues to exist as to how much volume is needed to maximize muscle

hypertrophy. The American College of Sports Medicine position stand recommends that novice

D
individuals perform 1 to 3 sets per exercise of 8 to 12 repetitions with a moderate load (70-85%

1RM) while advanced individuals should perform 3 to 6 sets per exercise of 1-12 repetitions with

TE
a loading range of 70-100% 1RM (1). With respect to advanced trainees, the wide loading range

was recommended to target both mechanical and metabolic (hypoxic) stimuli to maximize

muscle growth in a periodized fashion. These guidelines are consistent with a recent survey of
EP
127 competitive bodybuilders, which found that over 95% of respondents employed 3-6 sets per

exercise in their training programs (10). Despite this apparent congruity between science and

practice, some fitness professionals have challenged current opinion, claiming that a single set,

when taken to muscular failure, is as effective as higher RT volumes. For example, a recent
C

review attempted to make the case that training volume was unrelated to muscular gains,

postulating the performance of a single set per exercise is sufficient to maximize hypertrophy
C

more efficiently than higher-volume routines (8).

The primary rationale of those challenging the need for higher volumes is that many
A

studies on the topic have failed to show statistically significant differences in hypertrophy

between conditions. Indeed, when observing the individual studies that compare single-set

training with multiple-set training, we sometimes see no statistically significant differences

between the training conditions. For example, Mitchell et al. (22) compared two groups of 18

untrained men, of which one performed 3 sets of knee extensions per training session, while the

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 3

other performed only 1 set per training session. Following the intervention, no significant

between-group differences were noted; however, the group that trained with 3 sets increased

thigh cross-sectional area by 6.8% while the 1-set group increased thigh cross-sectional area by

3.1%. Despite an inability to detect statistically significant findings, the effect size difference of

0.27 favoring the higher volume condition indicates results were potentially meaningful from a

D
practical perspective. Similar findings have been reported in resistance trained men. In the

seminal work by Ostrowski et al. (26), 3 groups were compared with subjects randomized to

TE
perform either 1, 2 or 4 sets per exercise. Muscle cross-sectional area data for the quadriceps

muscle showed a 6.3%, 4.6% and 12.3% increase in size for the 1, 2, and 4 sets per exercise

groups, respectively. Although findings did not reach statistical significance, the effect size

difference of 0.29 between the highest and lowest volume conditions again suggests a
EP
hypertrophic benefit for greater training volumes.

The previous examples highlight the fact that examining only statistical significance

disregards the small sample sizes associated with RT research tend to make them underpowered
C

to detect statistical probability (an a priori alpha level of 0.05) when an actual effect may, in fact,

exist (i.e. type II error). In an attempt to enhance statistical power and objectively quantify the
C

effects of volume on muscle hypertrophy, Krieger (18) pooled the results of all studies

comparing single- versus multiple-set training and analyzed the combined effect sizes by meta-
A

regression. A total of 8 studies met inclusion criteria at the time of the literature search (October

2009). Results showed a significantly greater hypertrophic benefit to performing multiple versus

single sets; however, the magnitude of effect was modest (effect size difference of 0.10),

possibly because of the low number of studies included in the analysis. The relatively small

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 4

difference in effect sizes raised the question of the practical meaningfulness of multi-set routines,

as they are more time-demanding than single-set RT schemes.

Recently, Schoenfeld et al. (31) set out to update the previous meta-analysis (18), given a

plethora of new research on the topic since publication of that paper. The researchers chose to

analyze volume on the basis of the number of sets performed per week per muscle group,

D
surmising it to be a more relevant measure of training volume. A total of 15 studies meeting

inclusion criteria showed a significant benefit to performing higher versus lower training

TE
volumes. Moreover, a clear dose-response relationship between the number of sets per muscle

per week and muscle growth was found when RT volume was stratified into <5, 5–9, and 10+

sets per week, with graded increases seen in percentage gains across categories (5.4%, 6.6%, and

9.8%, respectively). The effect size calculation for the highest category showed a moderate
EP
magnitude of effect (0.52) while that for the lowest category showed a small effect (0.31).

Importantly, subgroup analysis revealed that conclusions strengthened when direct measures of

muscle growth such as magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound were separated from less
C

accurate indirect measures such as dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and air displacement

plethysmography (BodPod). These findings lend strong support to the claim that volume is a
C

primary driver of muscle hypertrophy. It should be noted that the data were insufficient to

determine whether more than 10 weekly sets per muscle provided additional hypertrophic
A

benefits and, if so, at what point a threshold exists.

Wernbom et al. (33) suggested that a plateau of hypertrophic adaptations might occur

after a certain point of volume, and moreover, the authors hypothesized the possibility of a

decline in these adaptations when increasing training volume beyond that point. While lacking in

empirical evidence, it is possible that the dose-response relationship between RT volume and

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 5

muscle hypertrophy follows an inverted U-shaped curve, whereby excessive RT volume would

lead to negative adaptations. A recent study that tested the effects of German Volume Training

provides further insights on the topic (2). The researchers compared two groups, of which, one

performed 31 sets per training session and the other 21 sets per training session. Following six

weeks of RT, increases in trunk and arm lean body mass favored the lower-volume, 21-set group.

D
These findings suggest that volume should be increased only up to a certain point, and anything

above might actually impair recovery. Curiously, no significant increases in muscle thickness

TE
were found across groups; however, a limitation is that the study lasted only 6 weeks. Currently,

there is a paucity of studies that have investigated such high RT volumes, thereby opening up an

avenue for future research to explore the upper threshold of RT volume for gains in muscle mass.

Several studies have shown that VL may be an important factor concerning muscle
EP
growth. Schoenfeld et al. (28) found similar increases in muscle thickness of the elbow flexors

performing 7 sets of 3 repetitions versus 3 sets of 10RM, which equated for VL between

conditions. Thus, even though the heavier load condition performed more than double the
C

number of sets as the moderate load condition, both groups achieved comparable improvements

in hypertrophy. These findings are consistent with other research that equated VL in heavy
C

versus moderate load training protocols (16). Subsequently, Schoenfeld et al. (30) found

significantly greater growth in the quadriceps in an 8-week study that equated the number of sets,
A

as opposed to VL, in heavy (3 sets of 3RM) versus moderate (3 sets of 10RM) load training (30).

While this study would seem to reinforce the relevance of VL, conflicting findings have been

reported whereby heavier load training showed greater improvements in some markers of

hypertrophy despite a lower total VL (19). Alternatively, VL seems to be of little consequence to

low-load RT protocols, as studies show similar muscle growth when comparing training with

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 6

low versus moderate loads despite a substantially higher VL in the low-load conditions (22, 24,

29). The amount of load used is a potentially confounding factor when considering RT volume;

the evidence seems to show that the use of heavier loads requires performance of a greater

number of sets to maximize the growth response, although this does not appear to be the case

with lighter loads. For low-loads with higher repetitions, it is evident that higher VL is needed to

D
reach peripheral fatigue and thus induce a sufficient training stimuli. Therefore, it is necessary to

emphasize that while training volume is an important variable, ultimately, the interplay between

TE
external load and volume will likely determine the adaptive response. On the point of training

load, some studies indicate a preferential growth of type I and type II muscle fibers with low-

load and high-load training, respectively (25, 32). For the individual whose sole goal is

maximize muscular development (e.g. bodybuilder), the findings suggest that both loading
EP
schemes should be combined, making this a potentially important variable to consider in addition

to training volume. On the other hand, those whose goal is to maximize strength should stick

primarily with heavier loads as this type of training has greater transfer to the ability to produce
C

force.

Practical Applications
C

There is compelling evidence that RT volume is a primary driver of hypertrophy, with

higher volumes showing greater increases in muscle growth. It therefore follows that those
A

seeking to maximize hypertrophy should train with multi-set protocols. Based on current

literature, 10+ sets per muscle per week would seem to be a good starting point as to

programming volume in those with hypertrophic-oriented goals. Volume should then be

manipulated based on individual response. That said, substantial gains can nevertheless be

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 7

achieved with volumes as low as 4 or fewer sets per muscle per week. For those who are time-

pressed, lower volume routines represent a viable option to balance efficiency with results.

Given that consistently training with high volumes has been purported to hasten the onset

of overtraining (9), it can be hypothesized that periodizing volume may enhance hypertrophy.

Therefore, the ongoing discussion of high versus low RT volume does not need to be binary;

D
rather, a combination of both approaches might be an optimal long-term strategy that would

allow constant progression. Progressively increasing from lower (e.g. 10 sets per muscle per

TE
week) to higher (e.g. 20 sets per muscle per week) RT volumes over a period of several months

may help to promote a state of functional overreaching, which would, in turn, result in a

supercompensation of muscle proteins while reducing the potential for overtraining. When

approaching such high volumes of training, individuals might consider distributing the total
EP
volume into two separate daily training sessions. There is some evidence to suggest that this

strategy might produce superior results in comparison to training only once per day (12). As

periods of high volume RT are not easily sustainable over longer periods, a lower volume phase
C

might also be incorporated. It has been shown that during these periods a decrease in training

volume by ~65% is sufficient for maintenance and, in some cases, even continued increases in
C

muscle mass (5). However, this seems to be somewhat dependent on age, as older adults appear

to require a higher dose of RT volume than the young to maintain myofibrillar hypertrophy (5).
A

Other factors also need to be considered when prescribing RT volume. Specifically, when

working with athletes, it may be hypothesized that lower RT volume would be more beneficial

due to other sport-specific training demands. Table 2 presents a hypothetical approach to

periodizing volume over time; note that the suggested volume levels should be individualized

based on needs and abilities.

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 8

Inter-individual responsiveness to RT remains a complex topic for practitioners as

evidence indicates that some individuals experience more dramatic changes in muscle mass than

others. In a large-scale study, Hubal et al. (14) reported a broad range of hypertrophic responses

to RT, with changes in muscle size varying between -2% to +59%. Interestingly, when observing

the overall results, the frequency of high responders was greater than that of low responders. It is

D
possible that so-called “non-responders” to training may benefit from an increased RT volume.

Such a beneficial effect has been shown in aerobic endurance training research whereby

TE
participants who responded poorly to an initial 6-week low-volume protocol showed robust

improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness after undertaking a subsequent 6-week protocol with

an increased volume of training, so much so that none of the participants were classified as a

“non-responder” after the ensuing higher-volume trial (23). Whether similar results would be
EP
seen in RT remains speculative, but intriguing findings in this regard come from Marshall et al.

(20) who examined the relationship of RT volume in low responders to changes in dynamic

muscular strength. Following 6-weeks of RT, the researchers reported that both high and low
C

responders were identified from all randomized training groups (i.e. 1-set, 4-set, and 8-set

groups). However, the number of low responders was highest for the 1-set group. In contrast, a
C

greater number of high responders were from the 4-set and 8-set groups. While it cannot be

inferred from these findings whether higher volume RT would elicit hypertrophic improvements
A

in low responders, they do provide a logical rationale for practical experimentation in those who

respond poorly to gaining muscle mass with lower volume RT protocols.

Finally, it is known that hypertrophy can manifest in a regional specific manner, both

from an intra- and inter-muscular standpoint (4). In this way, some aspects of a given muscle or

the individual heads of the muscle will show greater growth than other segments. If and how

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 9

volume plays a role in this process remains to be determined and presents an interesting area of

experimentation and research.

References

1. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708,

D
2009.

2. Amirthalingam, T, Mavros, Y, Wilson, GC, Clarke, JL, Mitchell, L, and Hackett, DA. Effects

TE
of a modified German volume training program on muscular hypertrophy and strength. J
Strength Cond Res 31 (11): 3109-3119, 2016.

3. Andersen, JL, Schjerling, P, and Saltin, B. Muscle, genes and athletic performance. Sci Am
283: 48-55, 2000.

4. Antonio, J. Nonuniform response of skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training: can

bodybuilders induce regional muscle hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 14: 102-113, 2000.
EP
5. Bickel, CS, Cross, JM, and Bamman, MM. Exercise dosing to retain resistance training
adaptations in young and older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1177-1187, 2011.

6. Burd, NA, Andrews, RJ, West, DW, Little, JP, Cochran, AJ, Hector, AJ, Cashaback, JG,
Gibala, MJ, Potvin, JR, Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Muscle time under tension during
resistance exercise stimulates differential muscle protein sub-fractional synthetic responses in
C

men. J Physiol 590: 351-362, 2012.

7. DeFronzo, RA, Bonadonna, RC, and Ferrannini, E. Pathogenesis of NIDDM. A balanced

overview. Diabetes Care 15: 318-368, 1992.
C

8. Fisher, J, Steele, J, Bruce-Low, S, and Smith, D. Evidence-based resistance training

recommendations. Med Sportiva 15: 147-162, 2011.
A

9. Fry, AC, and Kraemer, WJ. Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching.
Neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med 23: 106-129, 1997.

10. Hackett, DA, Johnson, NA, and Chow, CM. Training practices and ergogenic aids used by
male bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1609-1617, 2013.

11. Haff, GG. Quantifying workloads in resistance training: a brief review. Strength Cond J : 31-
40, 2010.

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 10

12. Hakkinen, K, and Kallinen, M. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily
sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 34:
117-124, 1994.

13. Helms, E, Fitschen, PJ, Aragon, A, Cronin, J, and Schoenfeld, BJ. Recommendations for
natural bodybuilding contest preparation: resistance and cardiovascular training. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 55(3):164-78 2015.

14. Hubal, MJ, Gordish-Dressman, H, Thompson, PD, Price, TB, Hoffman, EP, Angelopoulos,
TJ, Gordon, PM, Moyna, NM, Pescatello, LS, Visich, PS, Zoeller, RF, Seip, RL, and Clarkson,

D
PM. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exer. 37: 964-972, 2005.

TE
15. Jurca, R, Lamonte, MJ, Barlow, CE, Kampert, JB, Church, TS, and Blair, SN. Association of
muscular strength with incidence of metabolic syndrome in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 1849-
1855, 2005.

16. Klemp, A, Dolan, C, Quiles, JM, Blanco, R, Zoeller, RF, Graves, BS, and Zourdos, MC.
Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce
similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 699-705, 2016.
EP
17. Kraemer, WJ, and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and
exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674-688, 2004.

18. Krieger, JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-
analysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150-1159, 2010.

19. Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Gonzalez, AM, Townsend, JR, Wells, AJ, Jajtner, AR, Beyer,
C

KS, Boone, CH, Miramonti, AA, Wang, R, LaMonica, MB, Fukuda, DH, Ratamess, NA, and
Stout, JR. The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and
size in resistance-trained men. Physiol Rep 3: 10.14814/phy2.12472, 2015.
C

20. Marshall, PW, McEwen, M, and Robbins, DW. Strength and neuromuscular adaptation
following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J
Appl Physiol 111: 3007-3016, 2011.
A

21. McBride, JM, McCaulley, GO, Cormie, P, Nuzzo, JL, Cavill, MJ, and Triplett, NT.
Comparison of methods to quantify volume during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 23:
106-110, 2009.

22. Mitchell, CJ, Churchward-Venne, TA, West, DD, Burd, NA, Breen, L, Baker, SK, and
Phillips, SM. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains
in young men. J Appl Physiol, 2012.

23. Montero, D, and Lundby, C. Refuting the myth of non-response to exercise training: 'non-
responders' do respond to higher dose of training. J Physiol 595: 3377-3387, 2017.

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 11

24. Morton, RW, Oikawa, SY, Wavell, CG, Mazara, N, McGlory, C, Quadrilatero, J, Baechler,
BL, Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance
training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol
(1985) 121: 129-138, 2016.

25. Netreba, A, Popov, D, Bravyy, Y, Lyubaeva, E, Terada, M, Ohira, T, Okabe, H,

Vinogradova, O, and Ohira, Y. Responses of knee extensor muscles to leg press training of
various types in human. Ross Fiziol Zh I I M Sechenova 99: 406-416, 2013.

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

D
training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength Cond Res 11:
149-154, 1997.

TE
27. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, Contreras, B, Alvar, BA, Cappaert, T, Ribeiro, AS, and
Vigotsky, A. A comparison of increases in volume load over 8 weeks of low- versus high-load
resistance training. Asian J Sports Med 7: e29247, 2016.

28. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ratamess, NA, Peterson, MD, Contreras, B, Tiryaki-Sonmez, G, and Alvar,
BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular
adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 28: 2909-2918, 2014.
EP
29. Schoenfeld, BJ, Peterson, MD, Ogborn, D, Contreras, B, and Sonmez, GT. Effects of Low-
Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained
Men. J Strength Cond Res. 29: 2954-2963, 2015.

30. Schoenfeld, BJ, Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, and Peterson, M. Differential Effects of Heavy
Versus Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. J
Sports Sci Med 15: 715-722, 2016.
C

31. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly
resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Sports Sci 35: 1073-1082, 2017.
C

32. Vinogradova, OL, Popov, DV, Netreba, AI, Tsvirkun, DV, Kurochkina, NS, Bachinin, AV,
Bravyi, I, Liubaeva, EV, Lysenko, EA, Miller, TF, Borovik, AS, Tarasova, OS, and Orlov, OI.
Optimization of training: development of a new partial load mode of strength training. Fizio
A

Cheloveka 39: 71-85, 2013.

33. Wernbom, M, Augustsson, J, and Thomee, R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume
and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med 37:
225-264, 2007.

34. Wolfe, RR. The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease. Am J Clin Nutr 84:
475-482, 2006.

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of different methods for quantifying volume

Method Advantage Disadvantage

Number of sets The easiest way of tracking This method does not take into account
volume. the number of repetitions and external
load. Thus, it provides only limited
insights into the total amount of work
performed in a training session.
Sets x repetitions In comparison with the number This method does not take into account
of sets, this method provides load, and therefore, even if the number of
more insights into the total total repetitions is the same, the total
amount of work performed. volume load might differ based on the
weight used.

D
Sets x repetitions x load This method is likely the most It can provide conflicting findings based
appropriate as it considers all on external load, as with low-load
variables. training, higher total volume load is
needed for hypertrophy.

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 2. A theoretical example how training volume can be periodized thorough a year
Weeks 1-12 Weeks 13-24 Weeks 25-36 Weeks 37 and Weeks 39-46 Weeks 47-52
38

7-10 sets 10-15 sets 15-20 sets 2-3 sets 20-25 sets 5-7 sets
Goal: to Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: to promote a Goal: reduction of
stimulate progressively progressively deloading state of functional training volume by
hypertrophy increasing the increasing the rate phase aimed at overreaching with ~65% for
with lower rate of of hypertrophy promoting a high volume supercompensation
training hypertrophy with with higher recovery. mesocycle. of muscle proteins

D
volumes and moderate training volumes. and maintenance of
acclimate the training volumes. muscle mass.
body for higher
volumes.
*All sets are expressed as per week per muscle group

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.