Strength training programs involve several key components, and one of the most significant components is volume. Volume has been the subject of extensive research, and there has been a lot of discourse online about volume. This article aims to provide an overview of the research on volume and offer recommendations to help design individualised strength programs.
Introduction
Before exploring volume, it’s important to define exactly what we mean by the term.
There are numerous interpretations of volume in research literature. Some studies define it as the total weight lifted: calculated as weight × sets × reps, which is essentially measuring total tonnage. However, many of these same studies also categorise volume simply by the number of sets performed per exercise.
A more practical definition of volume focuses on the number of meaningful sets performed (and I’ve intentionally highlighted “meaningful” here!).
Helms et al. (2018) defines volume in terms of the number of hard sets completed each week and provides recommendations for sets per muscle group. Viewing volume as the number of sets performed is useful, but I also suggest considering the classification of volume as the number of meaningful sets per lift within a microcycle. For instance, a microcycle might include 5 sets of squats, 5 sets of pause squats, and 5 sets of leg press, adding up to a total of 15 sets across the cycle. Of course, not all sets are created equal: squats impose a greater systemic stress than leg presses, and this is where coaching creativity plays a crucial role in balancing volume and recovery.
When warming up with weights, it’s best to exclude warm-up sets from your volume count, as they typically fall far enough from failure to be considered not meaningful, meaning they won’t contribute significantly to positive adaptations on their own.
Initial Information to consider
Before exploring volume in detail, it’s important to acknowledge a few fundamental points. Strength is influenced by skill, neurological adaptations, and muscle size. Enhancing any of these factors can lead to increased strength. As a result, examining research on hypertrophy is valuable, even when strength is the primary focus, and vice versa.
Additionally, increasing volume generally means performing a lift more frequently, leading to more opportunities for practice. This contributes to improved skill and greater lifting capacity. The effect is particularly pronounced for novice lifters, while advanced lifters, who already possess a strong technical foundation, experience less dramatic benefits.
Specificity is another crucial consideration. If the goal is to increase Squat 1RM, a session consisting of three sets of five squats will be more effective than one with three sets of ten leg extensions, even if the total volume (by our definition) remains the same.
Lastly, while we’ll be examining volume as an independent variable, in reality, it does not exist in isolation. Intensity plays a significant role: three sets of five squats at 70% of 1RM are less demanding than three sets of five at 80%. Although both sessions contain the same number of sets—meaning they would be equal in volume based on the definition of meaningful sets—the higher-intensity session imposes greater physiological stress and requires more recovery.
Importantly, neither approach is inherently better or worse; rather, their effectiveness depends on the broader training program and how the individual athlete responds. The key takeaway is that, even when total volume remains the same by definition (in terms of meaningful sets), the actual impact of that volume varies depending on factors like exercise selection and intensity.
Research Overview
Volume has been extensively researched, however there is a lot of noise and difficulty when trying to get volume recommendations. Consequently, I’ll briefly discuss some of the difficulties with research, then look at general observations from the research, and then look at what the actual research says. If you want to skip this bit, I’d suggest jumping to the “meta-analysis” section instead, or the “Recommendations” section.
A majority of studies compare the effects of performing 3 sets versus 1 set of an exercise, analysing both hypertrophy and strength outcomes. However, the training protocols vary significantly between studies. For example, Bottaro et al. (2010) had participants train twice per week, performing just one upper-body and one lower-body exercise per session, with some participants assigned 3 sets and others 1 set.
Conversely, Rønnestad et al. (2007) structured training over three weekly sessions, with each session including 3 lower-body and 5 upper-body exercises. Looking specifically at the lower-body movements, participants performed leg press, leg extensions, and leg curls. This setup meant that the group performing 3 sets per exercise actually completed 6 sets per session that directly targeted the quads (via leg press and leg extensions), totaling 18 sets per week targeting the quads—compared to just 6 sets per week targeting the quads for those in the 1-set group. Meanwhile, other muscle groups were only trained via a single exercise, meaning the comparison of the people performing 3 sets per session could range from 9 sets per week versus 3 sets per week for different body parts, yet the study categorised both situations under the broad umbrella of “3 sets per exercise.” This creates a major disparity in actual training volume and makes within-study comparisons difficult—and cross-study comparisons even harder, particularly when contrasted with protocols like those in Bottaro et al. (2010). These inconsistencies are not isolated examples; such discrepancies frequently appear across research.
Beyond programming differences, other variables contribute to the difficulty of interpreting findings. Factors like isolation versus compound movements, participant experience levels, researcher ability to properly coach and assess 1RM, and methodological inconsistencies all introduce additional noise. Given these challenges, it’s not surprising that study results sometimes contradict each other. However, meta-analyses provide a clearer picture and more definitive recommendations.
That said, after reviewing multiple studies, there are some common trends:
-
-
- Most research focuses on untrained lifters.
- Even minimal volume yields strength gains. Studies in which participants performed just one set per exercise to failure (typically 2–3 times per week) still resulted in meaningful improvements. In other words, doing some hard work—no matter how small—is far better than doing nothing at all. Consistency is king.
- Most research uses technical failure in each set. Participants often adjusted weights between sets to maintain a consistent rep count, meaning there is little data on the interaction between volume and non-maximal sets. There may also be discrepancies around what technical failure looks like.
- Rep ranges vary across studies. Some employed block training, alternating between lower-rep phases (~5RM) and higher-rep phases (~8–12RM), while others maintained a stable rep range throughout.
- Every study showed one of two outcomes:
- Three sets per exercise produced greater progress than one set.
- Three sets resulted in similar progress to one set.
- There were no studies showing one set to be superior to three sets.
- Those that reported no difference between one and three sets often still found marginal benefits in the 3-set group, the benefits simply weren’t statistically significant enough to make a definitive claim. However, given the consistency of these small differences across multiple studies, this trend is worth noting.
-
The actual research
Below are studies investigating the relationship between training volume and strength/hypertrophy outcomes. For clarity, control group shave been omitted:
Studies Showing Increased Volume Led to Greater Strength and/or Hypertrophy Gains
- Radaelli et al. (2015) – Untrained participants performed 1, 3, or 5 sets per exercise, training 3 times per week (equating to 3–15 sets per week). The 5-set group showed the best results, followed by the 3-set group, with the 1-set group trailing behind.
- Robbins et al. (2012) – Untrained men trained for 6 weeks, performing 1, 4, or 8 sets. Researchers concluded their research “provides support for the notion that high volumes, as compared with low volumes, are superior with respect to strength development. It is possible that higher volumes are associated with relatively greater central and peripheral adaptation.”
- Sooneste et al. (2013) – Participants performed three sets of curls with one arm and one set with the other, twice per week. The arm trained with three sets experienced significantly greater hypertrophy.
- Bottaro et al. (2010) – Two groups trained twice per week; one group performed three sets of knee extensions and one set of preacher curls, while the other did the reverse. The three-set knee extension group saw better strength gains, but hypertrophy results were similar across groups. Preacher curls showed no significant differences.
- Rønnestad et al. (2007) – Participants performed either 3 sets per exercise or 1 set per exercise across three lower-body (leg press, leg curl, leg extension) and five upper-body exercises. The 3-set group saw significantly greater lower-body strength and hypertrophy gains, but upper-body results were comparable between groups. This is likely due to the lower body exercises using more musculature than the upper body exercises, causing far more crossover effect between muscle groups within the lower body.
- Galvao and Taafe (2005) – Participants aged 65–70 trained twice per week for 20 weeks, performing either 1 or 3 sets per exercise. The 3-set group showed better results but noted that for detrained individuals, even modest volume can lead to substantial strength improvements.
- Marzolini et al. (2008) – Participants, with an average age of 61, mostly (but not all) men with coronary artery disease, trained twice per week, performing aerobic training combined with either 1 or 3 sets of resistance exercises (half squat, leg curl, leg lift). The 3-set group achieved superior hypertrophy but had similar strength gains to the 1-set group. Note that the half squat was conducted with dumbbells.
- McBride et al. (2003) – Participants trained twice per week, with one group performing 1 set per exercise and the other 6 sets. The higher-volume group gained more strength, but hypertrophy differences were negligible.
- Munn et al. (2005) – 115 participants performed 1 or 3 sets, with some doing movements at faster speeds. The multiple-set group had better results, but researchers noted that training fast produced similar benefits to performing additional sets.
- Rhea et al. (2002) – Untrained men performed either 1 or 3 sets of leg press and bench press, training three times per week. The 3-set group had better leg press strength gains (33% improvement vs. 20% for the 1-set group), while bench press results were similar.
Studies Showing No Difference Between 3 and 1 Sets
- Ostrowski et al. (1997) – Trained men performed either 3, 6, or 12 sets per muscle group for 10 weeks. No significant differences were observed, suggesting that beyond a certain threshold, additional volume may not provide further benefits.
- Cannon and Marino (2010) – Untrained women (aged 20–30 and 60–78) performed 1 or 3 sets of isolation exercises, training 3 times per week. Both groups improved in strength and hypertrophy, with no differences between volume conditions.
- Correa et al. (2010) – Postmenopausal women trained five times per week, performing 1 or 3 sets across various exercises. All participants improved in strength and hypertrophy, with no notable difference between volume groups.
- Mitchell et al. (2012) – Untrained men (aged 20–22) trained one leg with 1 set of knee extensions at 80% of 1RM, another with 3 sets at 80%, and a third with 3 sets at 30%. While the low-intensity condition was clearly inferior, there were no differences between 1 and 3 sets at 80%.
- Radaelli et al. (2013) – Untrained women (aged 60–74) trained twice per week, performing either 1 or 3 sets per exercise. Strength improved across all participants, with the 3-set group showing slightly better gains, though not enough to be conclusive. Hypertrophy differences were also insignificant.
Meta-analysis
There has been a few meta-analysis into volume (meta-analysis being a study that examines previous literature on a topic and draws conclusions based on this). Two particularly notable ones are Schoenfeld et al. (2017) and Ralston et al. (2017).
Shoenfeld et al. (2017) reviewed past research to determine whether there was a dose-response effect of volume (whether increased levels of volume causes increased strength/hypertrophy gains) and how many sets per week should be performed to achieve greater hypertrophy results.
The findings demonstrated a clear dose-response relationship—more weekly sets correlated with greater hypertrophy. Specifically, higher training volumes produced better results, leading the researchers to conclude:
“Greater muscular development is achieved by performing at least 10 weekly sets per muscle group.”
This is a significant takeaway, as it provides a minimum threshold based on previous research. However, this recommendation applies specifically to untrained adults and focuses solely on hypertrophy. Still, as discussed earlier, strength is influenced by hypertrophy, skill, and neurological adaptations, so it is reasonable to assume that increased muscle growth contributes to greater strength gains.
Ralston et al. (2017) took a slightly different approach, analysing training volume by categorising it into low (1–5 sets per week), medium (5–9 sets per week), and high (10+ sets per week) per exercise.
Their findings mirrored Schoenfeld’s conclusions—both medium and high weekly sets resulted in greater strength gains for novice and intermediate male trainees. They also noted that, for experienced individuals, the limited available data suggests:
“For more experienced individuals, such as advanced and elite trainees, [medium weekly sets] and [high weekly sets] strength training may create greater strength gains compared with [low weekly sets].”
Additionally, Ralston et al. advised adopting a graded approach to volume as experience increases—meaning that adjusting volume strategically over time can optimize strength progression without excessive or unnecessary training load.
Other Considerations
Finally, before coming to the recommendations, it’s important to consider aspects of volume beyond simply the number of sets per week.
Fundamental Strength Training Principles
Regardless of volume, strength training must follow key principles, such as specificity and progressive overload, to be effective. I highly recommend checking out Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel for a deeper dive into these concepts. If your training program doesn’t adhere to basic principles, especially specificity (training directly for your goal) or progressive overload (gradually increasing demands), results will likely be limited, no matter how much volume you perform. Conversely, even if your volume isn’t perfect, following these principles will generally still lead to progress.
Balancing Volume and Recovery
While research indicates a dose-response relationship—suggesting that more volume leads to better outcomes—this must be balanced with recoverability. Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome reminds us that training must place enough stress on the body to stimulate adaptation while remaining manageable for recovery. Too much volume may hinder recovery, while too little may fail to elicit progress.
That said, there’s room for variation. Studies have shown strength gains from just one set per exercise (usually performed 2–4 times per week), while others found excellent results from 5–8 sets per exercise, multiple times per week. Whether you undershoot or overshoot your volume, progress is still possible, so recording workouts and periodically reviewing your training blocks is key. Additionally, listening to your body is crucial, if you’re feeling signs of overtraining, it’s often an indicator that some adjustments are needed.
Periodising Volume Over Time
Though weekly volume recommendations are helpful, volume does not need to remain constant across training cycles. Periodisation, as outlined in Bompa and Haff (2009), allows for gradual changes in volume over a mesocycle, whether increasing or decreasing. You can even temporarily exceed recoverable volume if planned deload phases follow. Similarly, specific programming blocks (hypertrophy, strength, etc.) can affect volume requirements, meaning adjustments should be made to match long-term goals. This article’s recommendations serve as a foundation for a basic microcycle, which can then be refined and adapted to individual needs.
Crossover Effects of Volume
Volume does not exist in isolation, many exercises contribute to multiple muscle groups. For instance, 5 sets of bench press + 5 sets of military press might result in 10 sets of shoulder work, while other movements have less direct crossover. 5 sets of pull-ups + 5 sets of military press wouldn’t equate to 10 full sets for the shoulders, but it would still exceed just 5 sets. This requires some creativity and judgment, and there’s rarely an exact answer, experimentation with programming is encouraged.
Different Methods of Measuring Volume
Coaches use varied approaches to track and structure volume:
- Reactive Training Systems employ a Stress Index, factoring in both intensity and volume.
- JTS Powerlifting Program Design Manual provides guidelines on appropriate set counts.
- Helms et al. (2018) offers volume recommendations based on lifter categories.
- Other coaches track total sets, average intensity, total tonnage and total reps all together.
Despite these differing methodologies, actual training volume remains relatively similar across systems.
Volume and Intensity Interaction
Volume is not independent of intensity. 10 sets of 5 reps per week at 5RM is extremely demanding, whereas 10 sets of 5 reps at 65% is far more manageable. Higher intensity may require reduced volume, while lower intensity allows for increased volume, both approaches have their place, depending on the lifter’s needs.
Minimum Effective Volume
Finally, research confirms that even 1 set of an exercise, performed multiple times per week, is enough for novices (and even some trained athletes) to gain strength. While not ideal for long-term programming, if time constraints or motivation issues arise, simply doing one meaningful set is still worthwhile—far better than skipping training altogether.
Recommendations: How many sets per week?
Based on the research outlined above, the following broad recommendations should provide a useful starting point.
Novice Lifters:
I generally recommend performing around 10 sets per week, based primarily on Schoenfeld et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis.
Advanced Lifters:
For more experienced lifters, the research does not provide clear recommendations beyond this. However, the general trend is that the more advanced the lifter, the more sets they can tolerate. Because of this, advanced lifters should experiment with different training blocks, trying various protocols and comparing results. If higher volume proves beneficial, consider where that volume comes from and how it affects specific goals like hypertrophy or peaking. A good starting point might be 15-20 sets per week.
Key Considerations for Volume
These recommendations are quite broad, and performing more than 20 sets per week can become impractical due to time constraints. Additionally, volume must be progressively built up—a novice lifter jumping straight to 20 sets per week is at high risk of injury. Work capacity should be developed gradually, increasing sets week by week.
Periodisation for Intermediate and Advanced Lifters
Intermediate and advanced lifters can benefit from periodisation, and volume fits naturally within this structure. If aiming for 15 sets per week as a baseline, a six-week block could look something like:
- Week 1 – 13 sets per week
- Week 2 – 15 sets per week
- Week 3 – 15 sets per week
- Week 4 – 16 sets per week
- Week 5 – 17 sets per week
- Week 6 – Deload or pivot week
Minimum Effective Volume or Maximum Recoverable Volume?
One of the main considerations when determining weekly sets is choosing between two general approaches:
- Minimum Effective Volume – Performing the least amount of work needed to make steady gains in strength and hypertrophy
- Maximum Recoverable Volume – Performing as much volume as possible while still recovering, to maximise potential gains
In reality, most lifters rarely train at absolute minimum or maximum levels. You might slightly exceed the minimum or fall just below the maximum.
Which Approach is Best?
Both approaches have merit, and as long as training volume is sufficient for progress and remains within recoverable limits, either method can work well.
For a novice lifter, I recommend starting with 10 sets per muscle group per week, gradually increasing this over 3–6 months to reach around 15 sets per week. Progress won’t always be linear, and deloads may be necessary, along with exercise variations every few weeks as training intensity rises.
For intermediate and advanced lifters, conducting several microcycles (ideally mesocycles or training blocks) with minimum recommended volume can be useful. After an introductory microcycle, try a block with gradually increasing volume, aiming for a similar length to previous blocks, though cutting it short if necessary is fine. Then, complete another block at higher volume, keeping it consistent throughout. This process should help identify personal volume limits and determine optimal set ranges for strength and hypertrophy gains.
Final Considerations
Research has shown that even performing just one intense set per exercise, multiple times per week, is enough for novices (and even some trained lifters) to make progress, though at a reduced rate.
The most important factor is simply getting into the gym and putting in the work, aiming to progressively lift heavier over time. Early progress can be rapid during the first few months, but slows down as training experience increases. However, consistent effort, even with lower volume, will lead to steady improvement. Consistency remains the most crucial element of any successful program.
References
Bompa, T. & Haff, G. (2009) Periodization: theory and methodology of training. 5th Edn.
Bottaro, M., Velosa, J., Wagner, D., Gentil, P. (2010) ‘Resistance training for strength and muscle thickness: Effect of number of sets and muscle group trained’, Science & Sports, 26, 259-264.
Cannon, J. & Marino, F. (2010) ‘Early-phase neuromuscular adaptations to high- and low-volume resistance training in untrained young and older women’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1505-1514.
Correa, C., Teixeira, B., Kruger, R., Bittencourt, A., Lemos, L., Marques, N., Regis, R., Reischak-Oliveira, A. & Pinto, R. (2014) ‘Effects of high and low volume of strength training on muscle strength, muscle volume and lipid profile in postmenopausal women’, Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 12, 62-67.
Galvao, D. & Taaffe, D. (2005) ‘Resistance exercise dosage in older adults: single-versus multiset effects on physical performance and body composition’, Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 53, 2090-2097.
Helms, E., Morgan, A. & Valdez, A. (2018) The Muscle & Strength Pyramid: Training. 2nd Edn.
Marzolini, S., Oh, P., Thomas, S. & Goodman, J. (2008) ‘Aerobic and Resistance Training in Coronary Disease: Single versus Multiple Sets’, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 1557-1564.
Munn, J., Herbert, R., Hancock, M. & Gandevia, S. (2005) ‘Resistance training for strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed’, Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 27, 1622-1626.
Ostrowski, K., Wilon, G., Weatherby, R. & Murphy, P. (1997) ‘The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular Size and Function’, The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11, 148-154.
Radaelli, R., Button, C., Wilhelm, E., Bottaro, M., Laerda, F., Gaya, A. Moraes, K., Peruzzolo, A., Brown, L. & Pinto, R. (2013) ‘Low- and high-volume strength training induces similar neuromuscular improvements in muscle quality in elderly women’, Experimental gerontology, 48, 710-716.
Radaelli, R., Fleck, S., Leite, T., Leite, R., Pinto, R., Fernandes, L. & Simao, R. (2015) ‘Dose-Response of 1, 3 and 5 sets of resistance exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance, and Hypertrophy’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 1349-1358.
Ralston, G., Kilgore, L., Wyatt, F. & Baker, J. (2017) ‘The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 47, 2585-2601.
Rhea, M., Alvar, B, Ball, S. & Burkett, L. (2002) ‘Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16, 525-529.
Schoenfeld, B., Peterson, M., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B. & Sonmez, G. T. (2015) ‘Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 2954-2963.
Schoenfeld, B., Ratamess, N., Peterson, M., Contreras, B., Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. & Alvar, B. (2014) ‘Effects of Different Volume-Equated Resistance Training Loading Strategies on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28, 2909-2918.
Schoenfeld, B., Ratamess, N., Peterson, M., Contreras, B., Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. & Alvar, B. (2015) ‘Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 1821-1829.
Schoenfeld, B., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K. & Belliard, R. (2019) ‘Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men’, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51, 94-103.
Schoenfeld, B., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D. & Krieger, J. (2017) ‘Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31, 3508-3523.
Schoenfeld, B., Ogborn, D. & Krieger, J. (2016) ‘Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 46, 1689-1697.
Schoenfeld, B., Grgic, J., Haun, C., Itagaki, T., Helms, E., Beck, C., & Zourdos, M. (2020) ‘The Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 50, 1201-1210.
Zaroni, R., Brigatto, F. & Schoenfeld, B. (2019) ‘High Resistance-Training Volume Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33, 893-897.